A plant which goes online now has been planned at least a decade ago. And a lot of coal projects actually have been cancelled. So that some plants go online now does not imply that the use of coal is expanding. The new coal plants which will go online now will reduce the amount of CO2 from coal because they are more efficient. So you can put a completely different spin to this: http://reneweconomy.com.au/201... But to get an unbiased view I would recommend to look at actual numbers about electricity generation in Germany: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.... (if you want to argue that coal should have been replaced instead of nuclear - I would agree)
From 2010 to 2015, Germany did add 90 TWh per year from renewables while shutting down 50 TWh of nuclear. Nuclear is now less than 100 TWh per year. Where do you see a problem?
Germany is not really expanding the use of coal (only 10 TWh more comparing 2015 to 2010 but it was at much higher levels previously - so clearly no new plants required) and it added much more renewables (+90 TWh) than it it removed nuclear (-50 TWh). And yes gas dropped too (-30 TWh) while production increased (+20 TWh).
Perfect mitigation is a far fetched assumption, not that there is a residual risk. And that tiny risks add up is basic math. So what is the unfounded assumption in my post?
I answered to your claim that you need a sysadmin to locally install software. This is not true. I am not sure if somebody made it double-clickable for idiots, but it would be easy to do without inventing a new package format.
You are right that a threshold doesn't imply perfect repair but complete mitigation. But with "perfect" I meant that is is *always perfect*, i.e. zero residual risk. This is what is impossible and implies linearity at extremely low dose, because tiny residual risks must add up. Zero residual risk is what is impossible and therefor linearity must be true at extremely low doses and a threshold can't exist.
A threshold would imply perfect repair. This is not possible. Assuming a tiny residual risk after repair gives you linearity for extremely small doses. For higher doses linearity is an empirical fact. Saturation is at much higher doses.
You can always set up a local chroot environment with all necessary dependencies. Sounds difficult? For stuff which is properly packaged, there are fully automatic systems which do this for you... No root required.
The security mechanism isn't complicated at all. In fact, it is probably too simply. I explained why it is not used: because processes of the same user can already spy and manipulate each other anyway.
I agree. Containers essentially have the same properties of statically compiled binaries. The reason they exist is that you can just put existing stuff in there easily without having to refactor. There are just another rotation of the wheel of software complexity (you nicely separate stuff, then you add a lots of interfaces because things need to interact, then you end up having a mess so you create another higher level of separation, etc.)
I always wanted a "secure deb" format which does not run maintainer scripts and only allows files to be installed in certain directories. Together with reproducible builds this could solve this problem. Containers are not great it terms of security because you risk having all the duplicated libraries. There are reasons people invented advanced packaging formats and those reasons do not simply go away now containers are the new hype...
X11 is not fundamentally insecure. In fact, X11 had the security infrastructure to shield clients from each other for a long time. It is just not used and also has been neglected (people did not fix the bugs in applications which I filed - so some applications do not run as untrusted clients). The reason for this is that there was almost no point using it before, because different processes of the same user are not shielded against each other on Linux anyway, so there is nothing gained by doing it at the X level (maybe there is now with containers - although this is the wrong approach: containers are a security nightmare because the duplicate all library code). With respect to clients/processes of the same user, X is fundamentally much more secure than Linux has ever been - because at least in principle it had the infrastructure to protect clients from each other (although rudimentary and neglected).
Please wake up. Everybody is already adding renewables and this is working just fine. Germany added about 200 TWh per year in actual production (not capacity) in a little bit more than two decades. This is more than it had nuclear even when nuclear was its maximum (about 170 TWh / per year). So no, there is no choice between carbon and nuclear.
But where to the remote X app come from? They are UNIX/Linux apps which onlz exist because X is the universal display protocol. X essentially unifies the ecosystem of all UNIX-like operating systems and those apps also work on Mac OS X and Windows. This is extremely nice, but in the new Wayland word-order, this ecosystem will slowly fall apart... Breaking backwards compatibility for the display protocol is really stupid IMHO.
Process highly corrosive radioactive fluids poses huge challenges. Sure, "insane" is my characterization. But there are still so many challenging engineering problems to solve, at this point is unclear whether such a reactor could ever be scaled up to a useful design and operated economically.
In contrast, wind power works now, is relatively cheap, and it is well understood how to scale it up with some investments in the grid infrastructure.
While most anti-nuclear campaigners indeed do not have a firm grasp of the scientific facts and figures, the same seems to be true of most nuclear fanboys on slashdot. But with respect to energy policy the more important facts and figures are the economic ones: Those facts speak a very clear language: nuclear is not the solution for our energy problems and, especially not somewhat cool but insane designs such as molten salt reactors. Fusion is also cool but far from done. In contrast renewables have been shown over and over to be an economically viable option which can and is deployed today.
Two other comments: 1. Radiation is unseen, deadly, and threatening. Of course, this does not mean it has to be banned, but it does mean it has to be controlled. Unfortunately, this adds to the cost. 2. Also not every technology which can power big cities has the potential to cause great harm. For example, wind and solar clearly have much less potential to cause great harm than oil and coal.
It is essentially an abstract remove buffer management system, which is still exactly what is needed. So I would say it aged very well and with xrender and more recently DRI3 is supports modern use just cases very well while maintaining compatibility. Wayland is indeed simpler but also breaks compatibility. If Linux distributions make the mistake to adopt it as a replacement for X, this will cause a lot of pain for many of us for almost no gain. I have to disagree in one point though: Wayland developers (at least one of them) push it as far superior as X by spreading FUD about X. (and a lot of clueless phoronix readers help). This sometimes went so far that even rasterman (otherwise a proponent of wayland) had enough and called Daniel Stone a liar in a thread reddit who is setting people up for disappointment.
Don't worry. Germany is fine. You are reading the wrong magazines.
Yes, it is a problem that pumped-storage is shutting down, but is shutting down because it is currently not needed. The are simulations by Fraunhofer that additional storage is needed in Germany only when going over 60% renewables. In other words: storage isn't really an issue at the point where we are.
The customer prices in Germany are very high (30 cents / kWh) but only 6 cents are for the feed-in tariff for renewables. So this isn't the only one of many reasons for the high price (which is intentionally high). Also part of the industry is exempt and then pays much less than for example in California.
Coal is indeed a problem. But you have to understand that coal is big in Germany for reasons entirely unrelated to the Energiewende. Coal is simply really cheap and locally mined (jobs!) - while gas is expensive in Europe.
Whole-sale prices are lower in Germany than in California. Customer prices in Germany are twice as high. But is a myth that this is caused primarily by renewables. The feed-in tariff for renewables is only 20% of the cost and this would be lower if parts of the industry weren't exempt (and exempt industry pays much less than in California). For background information, see: https://law.stanford.edu/publi...
That carbon emission weren't reduced much is mostly because gas has been reduced while coal is not. This has something to do with the relative cost of gas and coal (which is different in Europe than the US which has cheap gas). Also Germany produced 647,1 GWh last year while net-exporting 50,1 GWh (both records). So other countries reduced emissions by buying electricity from Germany.
Slashdot Mirror
A plant which goes online now has been planned at least a decade ago. And a lot of coal projects actually have been cancelled. So that some plants go online now does not imply that the use of coal is expanding. The new coal plants which will go online now will reduce the amount of CO2 from coal because they are more efficient. So you can put a completely different spin to this: http://reneweconomy.com.au/201... But to get an unbiased view I would recommend to look at actual numbers about electricity generation in Germany: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.... (if you want to argue that coal should have been replaced instead of nuclear - I would agree)
From 2010 to 2015, Germany did add 90 TWh per year from renewables while shutting down 50 TWh of nuclear. Nuclear is now less than 100 TWh per year. Where do you see a problem?
Germany is not really expanding the use of coal (only 10 TWh more comparing 2015 to 2010 but it was at much higher levels previously - so clearly no new plants required) and it added much more renewables (+90 TWh) than it it removed nuclear (-50 TWh). And yes gas dropped too (-30 TWh) while production increased (+20 TWh).
Good point.
Perfect mitigation is a far fetched assumption, not that there is a residual risk. And that tiny risks add up is basic math. So what is the unfounded assumption in my post?
I answered to your claim that you need a sysadmin to locally install software. This is not true. I am not sure if somebody made it double-clickable for idiots, but it would be easy to do without inventing a new package format.
You are right that a threshold doesn't imply perfect repair but complete mitigation. But with "perfect" I meant that is is *always perfect*, i.e. zero residual risk. This is what is impossible and implies linearity at extremely low dose, because tiny residual risks must add up. Zero residual risk is what is impossible and therefor linearity must be true at extremely low doses and a threshold can't exist.
A threshold would imply perfect repair. This is not possible. Assuming a tiny residual risk after repair gives you linearity for extremely small doses. For higher doses linearity is an empirical fact. Saturation is at much higher doses.
You can always set up a local chroot environment with all necessary dependencies. Sounds difficult? For stuff which is properly packaged, there are fully automatic systems which do this for you... No root required.
The security mechanism isn't complicated at all. In fact, it is probably too simply. I explained why it is not used: because processes of the same user can already spy and manipulate each other anyway.
I agree. Containers essentially have the same properties of statically compiled binaries. The reason they exist is that you can just put existing stuff in there easily without having to refactor. There are just another rotation of the wheel of software complexity (you nicely separate stuff, then you add a lots of interfaces because things need to interact, then you end up having a mess so you create another higher level of separation, etc.)
I always wanted a "secure deb" format which does not run maintainer scripts and only allows files to be installed in certain directories. Together with reproducible builds this could solve this problem. Containers are not great it terms of security because you risk having all the duplicated libraries. There are reasons people invented advanced packaging formats and those reasons do not simply go away now containers are the new hype...
X11 is not fundamentally insecure. In fact, X11 had the security infrastructure to shield clients from each other for a long time. It is just not used and also has been neglected (people did not fix the bugs in applications which I filed - so some applications do not run as untrusted clients). The reason for this is that there was almost no point using it before, because different processes of the same user are not shielded against each other on Linux anyway, so there is nothing gained by doing it at the X level (maybe there is now with containers - although this is the wrong approach: containers are a security nightmare because the duplicate all library code). With respect to clients/processes of the same user, X is fundamentally much more secure than Linux has ever been - because at least in principle it had the infrastructure to protect clients from each other (although rudimentary and neglected).
Please wake up. Everybody is already adding renewables and this is working just fine. Germany added about 200 TWh per year in actual production (not capacity) in a little bit more than two decades. This is more than it had nuclear even when nuclear was its maximum (about 170 TWh / per year). So no, there is no choice between carbon and nuclear.
As if there were only two ways to generate electricity.
But where to the remote X app come from? They are UNIX/Linux apps which onlz exist because X is the universal display protocol. X essentially unifies the ecosystem of all UNIX-like operating systems and those apps also work on Mac OS X and Windows. This is extremely nice, but in the new Wayland word-order, this ecosystem will slowly fall apart... Breaking backwards compatibility for the display protocol is really stupid IMHO.
Process highly corrosive radioactive fluids poses huge challenges. Sure, "insane" is my characterization. But there are still so many challenging engineering problems to solve, at this point is unclear whether such a reactor could ever be scaled up to a useful design and operated economically.
In contrast, wind power works now, is relatively cheap, and it is well understood how to scale it up with some investments in the grid infrastructure.
While most anti-nuclear campaigners indeed do not have a firm grasp of the scientific facts and figures, the same seems to be true of most nuclear fanboys on slashdot. But with respect to energy policy the more important facts and figures are the economic ones: Those facts speak a very clear language: nuclear is not the solution for our energy problems and, especially not somewhat cool but insane designs such as molten salt reactors. Fusion is also cool but far from done. In contrast renewables have been shown over and over to be an economically viable option which can and is deployed today.
Two other comments: 1. Radiation is unseen, deadly, and threatening. Of course, this does not mean it has to be banned, but it does mean it has to be controlled. Unfortunately, this adds to the cost. 2. Also not every technology which can power big cities has the potential to cause great harm. For example, wind and solar clearly have much less potential to cause great harm than oil and coal.
It is essentially an abstract remove buffer management system, which is still exactly what is needed. So I would say it aged very well and with xrender and more recently DRI3 is supports modern use just cases very well while maintaining compatibility. Wayland is indeed simpler but also breaks compatibility. If Linux distributions make the mistake to adopt it as a replacement for X, this will cause a lot of pain for many of us for almost no gain. I have to disagree in one point though: Wayland developers (at least one of them) push it as far superior as X by spreading FUD about X. (and a lot of clueless phoronix readers help). This sometimes went so far that even rasterman (otherwise a proponent of wayland) had enough and called Daniel Stone a liar in a thread reddit who is setting people up for disappointment.
After hesitating for years, I switched to xcfe. It is such a relieve from all the new crap.
Unsubsidized onshore wind is consistently estimated to be one of the cheapest energy sources. For example, see here
https://www.lazard.com/media/2...
Don't worry. Germany is fine. You are reading the wrong magazines.
Yes, it is a problem that pumped-storage is shutting down, but is shutting down because it is currently not needed. The are simulations by Fraunhofer that additional storage is needed in Germany only when going over 60% renewables. In other words: storage isn't really an issue at the point where we are.
The customer prices in Germany are very high (30 cents / kWh) but only 6 cents are for the feed-in tariff for renewables. So this isn't the only one of many reasons for the high price (which is intentionally high). Also part of the industry is exempt and then pays much less than for example in California.
Coal is indeed a problem. But you have to understand that coal is big in Germany for reasons entirely unrelated to the Energiewende. Coal is simply really cheap and locally mined (jobs!) - while gas is expensive in Europe.
Whole-sale prices are lower in Germany than in California. Customer prices in Germany are twice as high. But is a myth that this is caused primarily by renewables. The feed-in tariff for renewables is only 20% of the cost and this would be lower if parts of the industry weren't exempt (and exempt industry pays much less than in California). For background information, see: https://law.stanford.edu/publi...
That carbon emission weren't reduced much is mostly because gas has been reduced while coal is not. This has something to do with the relative cost of gas and coal (which is different in Europe than the US which has cheap gas). Also Germany produced 647,1 GWh last year while net-exporting 50,1 GWh (both records). So other countries reduced emissions by buying electricity from Germany.
no woosh. I know the interview is fake. But it is true that the language is a mess and that Scott profited from that.
Scott openly admits that he has profited from the unnecessary complexity of C++. See his D-lang conference talk.