Memorable passwords are usually not secure, particularly if you reuse those passwords in any way, and swapping characters, and replacing letters with numbers are really stupid things to do, since they are trivially easy to brute force. Then if you lose any account, they're likely all blown.
LOL you still don't seem to hear or understand- LastPass's passwords are specifically being stored FOR steam and chrome and edge etc- if your web browser is sufficiently subverted, the game is lost anyway.
Didn't matter a lot. Maybe it was a honeypot, maybe it checked a whole bunch of sites in a man in the middle attack- but I DIDN'T type in my username, so they would have had to check all the lists of millions of entries and do it very quickly, so I don't think so. And it listed out which breach it was, and it matched up. And I think it used a rainbow table for checking it, so they (allegedly) weren't sending my password in the clear.
It makes little difference, I didn't give a shit about any of the accounts, and I changed them all using LastPass to random 16 mixed character passwords.
> You have to always assume your pc has been hacked.
LOL. You can't polish a turd. If your PC is hacked they can grab your password as you type it in anyway, so using an online password storage makes no material difference to security as opposed to using your brain, but the online security is much more convenient, and the online stored passwords are much longer and more random, whereas you've admitted that your passwords are total shit.
Note that online password managers use your password to encrypt the list of passwords, and then they back that up for you to the cloud. It's the self-same process you use, and has the same vulnerabilities.
You know what? You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I first typed in random 'passwords' that weren't my LOW security password, and it said that those hadn't been hacked. And I didn't type in any of my high security passwords, and those are different on each site anyway, so there wouldn't be any point.
"Use a few passwords and variations of those. add caps and exchange letters for numbers aka "l33t"
I only use this for low security accounts that don't have any financial implications associated to them. But yes, that password got hacked.
I know this because I typed it into a 'has your password been hacked' site and it said yep, and told me what had happened. These sites exist because lists of passwords that have been hacked exist.
IRC I think it got cracked on yahoo or something; it wasn't like anything I'd done wrong.
Given that the economy usually does better under Democrats, and given that the economy is still recovering from the MASSIVE crash that happened under the last bout of Republicanism. I think the idea that it's all just the businessmen are suddenly happy that they're being lead by a Republican; I'd say that that's a bit of a stretch to say the least.
I mean that's the thing about recovery, things trend upwards, and this story said things trended upwards. Personally I see zero chance that this is anything that could be ascribed to Trump.
To be fair, these are research projects. The things they describe usually work, but may not have all the properties you would need to make a commercially successful battery. For example, the cell voltage; it should be as high as possible, some cell types are below 1 volt, which is really too low. Or it may not have very good current capacity, so you'd need excessively large membranes. Or loads of other things.
This is primary research, they're announcing that they've managed to get excellent stability, via some mechanism; even if this particular cell doesn't tick all the boxes, the same trick might be applied to other cells to give a really good battery.
And while I haven't read this paper, for a paper to be published it nearly always has to reveal what they did in sufficient detail that it could be reproduced.
They can be a threat for things like eagles that are already threatened and reproduce slowly, but wind turbines otherwise just don't kill enough birdies to matter, compared to, say, cats. Cats kill about a hundred times more birds, because they're good at it, and there's so many more of them than wind turbines.
No, actually pretty similar on average; the solar may even edge it. The nuclear reactor obviously has higher power at night, but much lower power during the day than the solar. The average capacity factor of solar is about 10-20% depending on location, so 9GW of solar will produce somewhere between 0.9GW and 1.8GW on average, whereas this is a 1.2GW reactor; and the solar was installed much, much more quickly, and probably cost roughly the same or even less than the nuclear.
> So for filling in the gaps we NEED something else, no way around it. Between 'cheap' coal, oil, natural gas, or covering land masses with biofuel crops, a modern design nuclear plant isn't a bad option.
Yeah, but the thing is, it is a bad option.
Forget fallout, meltdowns etc. Nuclear is expensive per kW.
Because of that nuclear plants are pretty much run flat out, as baseload, to get the kWh cost down to something that is remotely competitive. I mean, you can run them at half power, but when you do that, those kWh that are made are made at twice the price; and they weren't all that cheap to start with. So, using a nuclear plant to fill in for the 20% of time; isn't going to happen.
No, for filling in when both the wind and sun aren't producing, you need a cheap source of power; a gas turbine, or a hydroelectric plant or a diesel plant or similar, something ideally using a biofuel.
The chances of anyone in particular having a doppleganger may or may not be one in 137, depending on how you define it, but the chance of there being dopplegangers is about 100%.
To oversimplify a bit, there could be millions of them in fact, because there's billions of people, and EACH of them have a 1 in 137 chance of having a doppleganger.
> Any "externalities" you might imagine have long since been paid for through the scientific and manufacturing technology that fossil fuels have enabled.
So, you're saying that (for example) the tens of thousands of people that die each year, in say, the UK alone, from largely invisible air pollution, much of which is due to burning fossil fuels, has been 'paid for'???
It's not that you can't take it past 80%, it's just that the battery lasts longer if you keep it at 80%; you just tell the car to do that, and it will stop charging when it hits 80%. Thing is, an 80% charge is MORE than enough for most people's daily driving.
The odd time you want 100%, you can just tell the car to charge up to full the night before.
Fast chargers also shorten the battery's life; but it's like 10% less. So the battery might last 9 years instead of 10 if you ONLY charge on fast chargers; but if you occasionally use the fast chargers, it makes no significant difference to the lifespan of the batteries.
And if you've forgotten to charge up? You just stick it on charger and wait for a little while until you have enough charge to reach the fast charger, then drive there and charge it for half an hour or so- whatever is necessary, and then go from there. It's inconvenient if you fuck up like that, but you're not going to be doubling your travel time, Tesla's charge faster than they discharge as they drive.
Well, I sure hope you're regularly taking your ICE car up to 6000 rpm at full throttle on a cold engine, I wouldn't want you to ever pamper your car at all.
Yeah, how the fuck would you know that as a fact, given that it's only been out a year or two? Fuck you and fuck the fake crystal ball you rolled in on.
You're full of shit. Iodine is just the most awkward fallout for nuclear power proponents only because it's the most obvious form of fallout in its effects. But both caesium 137 and strontium 90 are pretty bad things to absorb; they continue to decay in the body and cause cancer; and they're particularly bad for children because they're more sensitive to radionuclides and because they have longer lifespans in which to develop cancers.
And yes, the natural rate of cancer is much higher; but so what? Cancer is about the most common disease of all; but that doesn't mean we want MORE people to die of it.
Nuclear power is antiquated 20th century tech; modern renewables are cheaper, more flexible, cleaner and economically far safer.
The way this hydrogen stuff seems to work best is in a PHEV; in other words, a plug-in prius-like car that runs on hydrogen. It's got a relatively small fuel cell, and you plug it in at night to charge up a small battery that can go a few tens of miles.
Most of the time you run only on the battery; and that's fine for everyday use.
But for long distance, you turn on the fuel cell and it keeps the battery topped up as you drive around. Producing the hydrogen isn't very efficient, but you're only using it for a small percentage of your travel, and you're using spare solar energy that you couldn't otherwise use.
AFAIK the effective energy mass density for hydrogen storage now seems to comfortably exceed lithium ion batteries; so for long distances hydrogen makes sense. Also the embrittlement issue is not a problem if the materials are chosen appropriately.
There's still problems with the lifespan of the fuel cells; but again you'd only be using it as a range-extender, so it's not used a lot. Fuel cells are somewhat expensive for the power they produce, but using them as a range extender, you don't need a huge amount of power, most of that comes from the battery; that greatly reduces costs.
The systems are still expensive, but getting cheaper, and there's infrastructure issues; but they're not as bad as electric cars were, since the filling stations can be further apart, also hydrogen makers for home use are unlikely to be super expensive for slow filling overnight.
Personally I don't like PHEVs much, but the hydrogen PHEVs seem to be borderline doable now, they're actually in production.
Slashdot Mirror
Memorable passwords are usually not secure, particularly if you reuse those passwords in any way, and swapping characters, and replacing letters with numbers are really stupid things to do, since they are trivially easy to brute force. Then if you lose any account, they're likely all blown.
LOL you still don't seem to hear or understand- LastPass's passwords are specifically being stored FOR steam and chrome and edge etc- if your web browser is sufficiently subverted, the game is lost anyway.
Didn't matter a lot. Maybe it was a honeypot, maybe it checked a whole bunch of sites in a man in the middle attack- but I DIDN'T type in my username, so they would have had to check all the lists of millions of entries and do it very quickly, so I don't think so. And it listed out which breach it was, and it matched up. And I think it used a rainbow table for checking it, so they (allegedly) weren't sending my password in the clear.
It makes little difference, I didn't give a shit about any of the accounts, and I changed them all using LastPass to random 16 mixed character passwords.
> You have to always assume your pc has been hacked.
LOL. You can't polish a turd. If your PC is hacked they can grab your password as you type it in anyway, so using an online password storage makes no material difference to security as opposed to using your brain, but the online security is much more convenient, and the online stored passwords are much longer and more random, whereas you've admitted that your passwords are total shit.
Bruce Schneier disagrees with you.
Note that online password managers use your password to encrypt the list of passwords, and then they back that up for you to the cloud. It's the self-same process you use, and has the same vulnerabilities.
You know what? You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I first typed in random 'passwords' that weren't my LOW security password, and it said that those hadn't been hacked. And I didn't type in any of my high security passwords, and those are different on each site anyway, so there wouldn't be any point.
"Use a few passwords and variations of those. add caps and exchange letters for numbers aka "l33t"
Hahaha. Don't do that, moron.
I too have a password I've used over ten years.
I only use this for low security accounts that don't have any financial implications associated to them. But yes, that password got hacked.
I know this because I typed it into a 'has your password been hacked' site and it said yep, and told me what had happened. These sites exist because lists of passwords that have been hacked exist.
IRC I think it got cracked on yahoo or something; it wasn't like anything I'd done wrong.
Given that the economy usually does better under Democrats, and given that the economy is still recovering from the MASSIVE crash that happened under the last bout of Republicanism. I think the idea that it's all just the businessmen are suddenly happy that they're being lead by a Republican; I'd say that that's a bit of a stretch to say the least.
I mean that's the thing about recovery, things trend upwards, and this story said things trended upwards. Personally I see zero chance that this is anything that could be ascribed to Trump.
20 WH/L is not incomparable with other flow batteries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Lithium ion batteries are hugely more energy dense, but that's not the point, the idea of flow batteries is that they may be super cheap.
To be fair, these are research projects. The things they describe usually work, but may not have all the properties you would need to make a commercially successful battery. For example, the cell voltage; it should be as high as possible, some cell types are below 1 volt, which is really too low. Or it may not have very good current capacity, so you'd need excessively large membranes. Or loads of other things.
This is primary research, they're announcing that they've managed to get excellent stability, via some mechanism; even if this particular cell doesn't tick all the boxes, the same trick might be applied to other cells to give a really good battery.
And while I haven't read this paper, for a paper to be published it nearly always has to reveal what they did in sufficient detail that it could be reproduced.
They can be a threat for things like eagles that are already threatened and reproduce slowly, but wind turbines otherwise just don't kill enough birdies to matter, compared to, say, cats. Cats kill about a hundred times more birds, because they're good at it, and there's so many more of them than wind turbines.
Asthma is as American as Apple Pie.
No, actually pretty similar on average; the solar may even edge it. The nuclear reactor obviously has higher power at night, but much lower power during the day than the solar. The average capacity factor of solar is about 10-20% depending on location, so 9GW of solar will produce somewhere between 0.9GW and 1.8GW on average, whereas this is a 1.2GW reactor; and the solar was installed much, much more quickly, and probably cost roughly the same or even less than the nuclear.
Yeah, nobody dies from radiation.
But there's been an estimated 1600 deaths from the practical problems due to the evacuation, things like the hospital having to be shutdown.
> So for filling in the gaps we NEED something else, no way around it. Between 'cheap' coal, oil, natural gas, or covering land masses with biofuel crops, a modern design nuclear plant isn't a bad option.
Yeah, but the thing is, it is a bad option.
Forget fallout, meltdowns etc. Nuclear is expensive per kW.
Because of that nuclear plants are pretty much run flat out, as baseload, to get the kWh cost down to something that is remotely competitive. I mean, you can run them at half power, but when you do that, those kWh that are made are made at twice the price; and they weren't all that cheap to start with. So, using a nuclear plant to fill in for the 20% of time; isn't going to happen.
No, for filling in when both the wind and sun aren't producing, you need a cheap source of power; a gas turbine, or a hydroelectric plant or a diesel plant or similar, something ideally using a biofuel.
You'd think that, whatever you think about this particular decision, in practice they're usually fairly strict.
He had her at least once.
The chances of anyone in particular having a doppleganger may or may not be one in 137, depending on how you define it, but the chance of there being dopplegangers is about 100%.
To oversimplify a bit, there could be millions of them in fact, because there's billions of people, and EACH of them have a 1 in 137 chance of having a doppleganger.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So it doesn't sound like their software is very good.
> Any "externalities" you might imagine have long since been paid for through the scientific and manufacturing technology that fossil fuels have enabled.
So, you're saying that (for example) the tens of thousands of people that die each year, in say, the UK alone, from largely invisible air pollution, much of which is due to burning fossil fuels, has been 'paid for'???
Sorry, no, you just pegged my bullshit meter.
It's not that you can't take it past 80%, it's just that the battery lasts longer if you keep it at 80%; you just tell the car to do that, and it will stop charging when it hits 80%. Thing is, an 80% charge is MORE than enough for most people's daily driving.
The odd time you want 100%, you can just tell the car to charge up to full the night before.
Fast chargers also shorten the battery's life; but it's like 10% less. So the battery might last 9 years instead of 10 if you ONLY charge on fast chargers; but if you occasionally use the fast chargers, it makes no significant difference to the lifespan of the batteries.
And if you've forgotten to charge up? You just stick it on charger and wait for a little while until you have enough charge to reach the fast charger, then drive there and charge it for half an hour or so- whatever is necessary, and then go from there. It's inconvenient if you fuck up like that, but you're not going to be doubling your travel time, Tesla's charge faster than they discharge as they drive.
Well, I sure hope you're regularly taking your ICE car up to 6000 rpm at full throttle on a cold engine, I wouldn't want you to ever pamper your car at all.
"A Model X is over $100K and maybe lasts 5 years"
Yeah, how the fuck would you know that as a fact, given that it's only been out a year or two? Fuck you and fuck the fake crystal ball you rolled in on.
You're full of shit. Iodine is just the most awkward fallout for nuclear power proponents only because it's the most obvious form of fallout in its effects. But both caesium 137 and strontium 90 are pretty bad things to absorb; they continue to decay in the body and cause cancer; and they're particularly bad for children because they're more sensitive to radionuclides and because they have longer lifespans in which to develop cancers.
And yes, the natural rate of cancer is much higher; but so what? Cancer is about the most common disease of all; but that doesn't mean we want MORE people to die of it.
Nuclear power is antiquated 20th century tech; modern renewables are cheaper, more flexible, cleaner and economically far safer.
The way this hydrogen stuff seems to work best is in a PHEV; in other words, a plug-in prius-like car that runs on hydrogen. It's got a relatively small fuel cell, and you plug it in at night to charge up a small battery that can go a few tens of miles.
Most of the time you run only on the battery; and that's fine for everyday use.
But for long distance, you turn on the fuel cell and it keeps the battery topped up as you drive around. Producing the hydrogen isn't very efficient, but you're only using it for a small percentage of your travel, and you're using spare solar energy that you couldn't otherwise use.
AFAIK the effective energy mass density for hydrogen storage now seems to comfortably exceed lithium ion batteries; so for long distances hydrogen makes sense. Also the embrittlement issue is not a problem if the materials are chosen appropriately.
There's still problems with the lifespan of the fuel cells; but again you'd only be using it as a range-extender, so it's not used a lot. Fuel cells are somewhat expensive for the power they produce, but using them as a range extender, you don't need a huge amount of power, most of that comes from the battery; that greatly reduces costs.
The systems are still expensive, but getting cheaper, and there's infrastructure issues; but they're not as bad as electric cars were, since the filling stations can be further apart, also hydrogen makers for home use are unlikely to be super expensive for slow filling overnight.
Personally I don't like PHEVs much, but the hydrogen PHEVs seem to be borderline doable now, they're actually in production.
As dunkelfalke says, that's lying by omission.