nope... I believe IT security deserves more respect because idiot users think security doesn't matter and the security in most systems... even supposidly high securiity systems is shit.
This is why hackers get into systems so easily. Because people like you systematically sabotage and undermine the people trying to do their jobs to such an extent that they just give up even trying to do their jobs. You're the ignorant abusive drunk of the IT world and most IT security suffers battered wive's syndrom from people like you to such an extent that they just take it for granted and accept it.
I don't. I have my priorities. You have yours. You don't like it when I fuck with your priorities? Fine. Don't fuck with mine.
Legal department doesn't take shit from people like you when your ignorance of the law exposes the company or lawsuits.
Accounting doesn't take shit from you when your ignorance and incompetence exposes the company to IRS audits, budget shortfalls, or fraud.
And I'm not putting up with your shit when it leaves the company's fly open so any passing hobo can come by and have a feel.
Yeah and because he doing power point presentations while dressed in greased leather while mumbling through the zipper hole in his mask... I can't wear shorts.
... strutting around in their low cut shirts and bare midriffs... And do we really need to see your tramp stamps?
In other news, Jerry that keeps showing up to work in his S&M gimp suit will switch to a more work appropriate polo shirt. Thanks for ruining it for everyone Jerry... you jackass.
Sounds like you need the storage onsite at least for the research project.
The mixed media thing sounds like something to throw at the cloud unless there's a reason not to do that.
As to spanning volumes etc... I don't really understand the file structure of this research project. Having a petabyte of data in a single directory is typically the opposite of good ideas.
I'd like more information.
As to back ups... it depends on how frequently the information changes. Backup tapes are probably the cheapest way to go for backups of archives. 3 TB at 20 dollars a tape.... not bad. And you can do incremental back ups if there are little changes.
The tapes are supposed to last about 10 years. So that's something.
If we're talking about high frequency changes... you almost need to replicate the primary storage... and the number of times you need to do that is variable on how badly you need to not lose the data.
If we're talking about data that if lost orphans are going to get ground up into hamburger and fed to the dogs... you're going to want multiple back ups. If it would merely be annoying... maybe one back up is fine.
On topic, so long as tor makes it harder for the NSA to figure out who is who on Tor by monopolizing the nodes I think Tor will be just fine. Greater speed is great. But the point of tor is security and that is somewhat tarnished at this point.
... Olympic organizer has decided to spend more time with his family.
or
In other news, Olympic committee signs binding deal to have f'ing anything else to provide food for the games.
or
In other news, Olympics relocated to Chernobyl because why not.
Look, offering the food up is one thing and I'm sure its "mostly" fine. I wouldn't eat the sea food but the rest is probably fine. But you're not making that the only option. That's going to get a rebellion on your hands.
Then I have to assume you're a sockpuppet or a troll.
nothing stops you from logging in. And pretending like coming up with a fake name to talk with people will some how expose you to doxxing or something is nonsense. Think my mother named me Karmashock? I've had trolls sniffing around for information to doxx me with for years. I don't ever associate anything real with this name. So it isn't possible.
Can you show me europe wide energy production statistics broken down by energy source?
I tried to find them but I could only find national statistics. I'd have to combine them all to get a useful picture of the european energy grid and I don't care enough to spend that kind of time to join together all the stats.
And note... the stats have to include eastern europe because there is an energy exchange between east and west.
EU wide statistics would be sufficient. Though an argument for carrying the exchange as far as Russia could be made if only because the exchange of power goes at least that far.
You import power from the grid and you are importing the GRID"s power.
Picking and choosing which power plants you want to say your power is coming from is only relevant on the spreadsheet... not reality.
When you import that nuclear power the places you imported it from can't use that nuclear power because YOU took it. Which means they have to rely on other power sources.
What is more, I suspect many of the other countries are double counting non-fossil fuel sources by rephrasing the question or the statistics to say something in one case that outputs one number and then say something that sounds the same but is different and outputs a different number.
The government in the US does this all the time and I've seen the EU do it all the time... and we can see something of this happening with these green energy stuff as well in europe.
Its gotten political and that means it follows political rules.
If you're not able to grasp that Germany is simply one customer on a continent wide energy grid then you can't understand your impact on that grid.
Increasing renewables in Germany is great. But you have no idea how much coal power you're sucking down unless you appreciate where your power imports come from?
what is more this notion that the renewables are not a fucking nightmare to manage in the grid is nonsense: http://instituteforenergyresea...
As to poland phasing out a given type of coal... that doesn't mean their coal power isn't being exported to germany or that they're not building more coal plants rapidly. or that those plants are not being funded by german utilities because the poles need additional funding to get them on line quickly. or that the poles are not planning on building two nuclear power plants largely to service the german energy demand.
Tell you what. Physically cut the cord between Germany and the rest of the grid and german's grid will be able to claim whatever it likes internally. If it is connected to the european grid then there is no such thing as german power. It is european power. Period.
And then you're talking about where the grid in general throughout europe gets its power. And once you do that the numbers look much more like the US numbers.
I'd be shocked if you're getting less than half your power from coal.
We can get deeper into this if you want. I was sent a bunch of links from a german fellow in this thread that included detailed information about Polish power generation that is expanding to meet german demand.
If you want to talk about energy, then you have to look at the whole grid OR physically cut the connection at the national borders and THEN the national figures will be more reliable.
germany could just buy up all the clean power on the european grid and then call themselves clean. Never mind that the places they buy it from will more often than not fill the void with coal. Meaning whatever it says on paper, the consumption will be fueled by coal. The amount of power supplied by coal is vastly under estimated because it has become politically incorrect to source your power from coal. In the US about half our power comes from coal.
In Europe, it is likely to be higher if only because they have less nuclear power per capita and less hydro electric.
If you're serious, then do comprehensive accounting for any environmental variable that is believed to have a wider scope than any specific jurisdiction. CO2 is supposed to be global. Emissions anywhere that ultimately profit you are relevant.
Imports should have their CO2 debt estimated. The power grid needs to be taken as a single whole rather than presuming to cut CO2 in state X or Y never mind what is happening in state Z.
What germany does matters very little if they are getting power from out of state. Make Germany a net power exporter or at the very least balance them out so they are neutral. Then we don't have to think about the externals as much. Of course... that assumes they are truly neutral and not bouncing their grid all over the place requiring that external markets provide them with reliable power for dead spots which will invariably be supplied by fossil fuels or nuclear.
I don't want to hear about california's rates because there's no such thing. They're members of the national grid at the very least. You can't break it up more finely than that because they're all interconnected. Cut the power leads from cali or make it so the power can only flow out and we could treat cali that way. But if they're importing power than whatever they're doing in the state ceases to matter and you have to look at the whole grid. Then you have to consider that the US grid is actually international just like the Europeans... and power is pushed across the canadian and mexican borders at the very least. It could stretch down into south American for all I know.
I think everything that needs to be said has been said. But if you want to discuss this with me further, log in. There are too many trolls and sock puppets exploiting AC for me to exchange more than a post or two without drawing them like locusts.
*looks for whether you have finally cited a contrasting reference point*
No contrasting reference point detected. Your concession stands.
Cite a nation or you concede because you lack an argument. I win by default.
How do you not know that you have to actually have a point in there somewhere?
You keep trying to play rhetorical games with me... really dumb ones... and its never going to work against anyone that isn't even more ignorant than you are.
Try harder next time. You're clearly too terrified to actually expose yourself to counter fire in this discussion. Fine. Your terror is merely a sign of my dominance.
As to the HVDC lines, I am aware of them, I don't understand their relevance to the argument.
As to eliminating coal, part of the problem with that is going to be that you run into the same problem that you run into accounting in government.
That is the electricity and the money really are in a giant pool and saying what came from where is not really a valid concept.
For example, lets say I build a nuclear power plant on the east coast, how would I get that power to the west coast? Its very doable but it doesn't work the way that the accounting would suggest it works.
What I would do is supply east coast power utilities with power and then have them forward displaced power in their area to the west where it would be used and then they would displace their usage further west still.
Thus by the time you got to the west coast, the power actually being used would be coming from relatively close to where it is being consumed. However, in the accounting you could say that the community is being supplied by that power plant on the east coast.
You see the same thing in government budget accounting. Once its in the general fund it really is just in the general fund. saying where it came from or what it is intended for isn't relevant until it is literally spent.
My point is that what cali utilities are likely doing is buying up renewable or more acceptable power out of state. And while sure they can claim they're green when they do that, the actual consequence of that is that the various markets they buy that from must themselves shift to more coal because the coal is available and the renewables are all being sold to California largely for political reasons... and I'm sure the Californians will pay more for the renewable power than the locals will so it makes financial sense to sell that where it will make the most money.
But is the actual carbon debt less? Not really because emissions don't actually need to change at all. This is just book keeping. Numbers got moved around on spread sheets.
That isn't real. This is a big problem with statistics. People don't understand how easy it is to bias numbers and studies to say whatever you want them to say. And it makes it very dangerous for people to rely on them when they don't have that background.
To really do proper accounting, you need to evaluate what is going on in the grid in general. If the cali grid is isolated and does not import or export power beyond state lines then we can just talk about cali. But if the cali grid crosses state lines then talking about what cali is doing isn't useful.
Now the US grid so far as I know actually connects to Canada and mexico at the very least. So we probably need to include them as well. Lets look at the generation of all three and that will give us a better idea of what is going on:
From wikipedia I'm also seeing about 70 percent of US power is coming from fossil fuels and about 45 percent of all the power is coming from coal. 20 percent is nuclear and the remainder is renewables. Of the renewables, 6.3 percent is hydro. So... that leaves us about 3.7 for geo thermal, solar, wind, etc. That's a joke.
Lets look at canada... Fossil fuels make up about 23 percent... figuring out what portion of that comes from coal was not immediately apparent and i don't really care. About 15 percent comes from nuclear and 61 percent comes from hydro. That leaves 1 percent coming from non-hydro renewables. Even worse than the US.
Lets look at Mexico...... less than a percent of a percent.
Okay... that is what fuels North America. Anything else is just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet. The only relevant renewables being used are old school hydro electric dams. The wind, solar, etc are basically a nusance because they complicate the power grid without really contributing anything meaningful to it.
Now if you want, we can do this in europe but its probably going to come out to a very similar figure. What is going on is that politicians a
So... you are still refusing to cite a nation of comparison between the US thus conceding the argument because you have no contrasting reference.
Done.
Your concession is accepted. It is recommended that you argue against less intelligent or more poorly educated people. You are out of my weight class and you are unable to engage with me on any issue where I have firm footing.
This entire discussion was battleships versus canoes.
I'm sorry if you're shamed by your canoe... Your feelings are not my responsibility.
You're not doing it for free... you're getting a salary, health benefits, 401k, etc. Comical.
People are paid well. One of the things people are paid for is to take security seriously. if you're such a little prissy drama queen that you can't handle a company phone which used to be a standard requirement in most companies at one point... then you know what... who wants you? Seriously. You sound like a whiny cunt. If you work with us then you're going to be constantly bitching about something and causing problems. People like you are best not hired in the first place.
You want team players. People that cause problems are more trouble than they're worth.
Slashdot Mirror
HR doesn't suck cock well enough to play slave... that would be marketing.
In what way did my comment suggest to you that I'm a pseudo intellectual?
And what does that term even mean to you?
I find it ironic that someone making unqualified insults backed by non-falsifiable arguments suggests that someone else is a pseudo intellectual.
Your comment can't be audited because it isn't complete.
You're not saying X person because variable 5 = Y bad thing.
You're just saying X person = poopyhead.
and you presume to judge my intellectual credibility?
https://youtu.be/-5LEYG5TqaI?t...
No really.
nope... I believe IT security deserves more respect because idiot users think security doesn't matter and the security in most systems... even supposidly high securiity systems is shit.
This is why hackers get into systems so easily. Because people like you systematically sabotage and undermine the people trying to do their jobs to such an extent that they just give up even trying to do their jobs. You're the ignorant abusive drunk of the IT world and most IT security suffers battered wive's syndrom from people like you to such an extent that they just take it for granted and accept it.
I don't. I have my priorities. You have yours. You don't like it when I fuck with your priorities? Fine. Don't fuck with mine.
Legal department doesn't take shit from people like you when your ignorance of the law exposes the company or lawsuits.
Accounting doesn't take shit from you when your ignorance and incompetence exposes the company to IRS audits, budget shortfalls, or fraud.
And I'm not putting up with your shit when it leaves the company's fly open so any passing hobo can come by and have a feel.
Yeah and because he doing power point presentations while dressed in greased leather while mumbling through the zipper hole in his mask... I can't wear shorts.
Fuck him.... With a donkey... right in his pussy.
The only console that makes any sense is the Nintendo products.
The PS4 and the XboxOne are just limited PCs. There's no reason to own one besides caving to corporate hostage taking techniques and ignorance.
http://static1.gamespot.com/up...
http://i.imgur.com/7ezaq7w.png
... strutting around in their low cut shirts and bare midriffs... And do we really need to see your tramp stamps?
In other news, Jerry that keeps showing up to work in his S&M gimp suit will switch to a more work appropriate polo shirt. Thanks for ruining it for everyone Jerry... you jackass.
Sounds like you need the storage onsite at least for the research project.
The mixed media thing sounds like something to throw at the cloud unless there's a reason not to do that.
As to spanning volumes etc... I don't really understand the file structure of this research project. Having a petabyte of data in a single directory is typically the opposite of good ideas.
I'd like more information.
As to back ups... it depends on how frequently the information changes. Backup tapes are probably the cheapest way to go for backups of archives. 3 TB at 20 dollars a tape.... not bad. And you can do incremental back ups if there are little changes.
The tapes are supposed to last about 10 years. So that's something.
If we're talking about high frequency changes... you almost need to replicate the primary storage... and the number of times you need to do that is variable on how badly you need to not lose the data.
If we're talking about data that if lost orphans are going to get ground up into hamburger and fed to the dogs... you're going to want multiple back ups. If it would merely be annoying... maybe one back up is fine.
The AC trolls didn't help. ;-)
On topic, so long as tor makes it harder for the NSA to figure out who is who on Tor by monopolizing the nodes I think Tor will be just fine. Greater speed is great. But the point of tor is security and that is somewhat tarnished at this point.
... Olympic organizer has decided to spend more time with his family.
or
In other news, Olympic committee signs binding deal to have f'ing anything else to provide food for the games.
or
In other news, Olympics relocated to Chernobyl because why not.
Look, offering the food up is one thing and I'm sure its "mostly" fine. I wouldn't eat the sea food but the rest is probably fine. But you're not making that the only option. That's going to get a rebellion on your hands.
Then I have to assume you're a sockpuppet or a troll.
nothing stops you from logging in. And pretending like coming up with a fake name to talk with people will some how expose you to doxxing or something is nonsense. Think my mother named me Karmashock? I've had trolls sniffing around for information to doxx me with for years. I don't ever associate anything real with this name. So it isn't possible.
So whatever. We're done then.
Good day.
https://www.dissentmagazine.or...
An interesting debate on the issue.
This is a series of little articles that go back and forth between two people.
Think what you will but you should find that interesting. My points are well represented in there and I think yours are as well.
I'd comment further but you're not logging in.
Can you show me europe wide energy production statistics broken down by energy source?
I tried to find them but I could only find national statistics. I'd have to combine them all to get a useful picture of the european energy grid and I don't care enough to spend that kind of time to join together all the stats.
And note... the stats have to include eastern europe because there is an energy exchange between east and west.
EU wide statistics would be sufficient. Though an argument for carrying the exchange as far as Russia could be made if only because the exchange of power goes at least that far.
that's just greenwashing.
You import power from the grid and you are importing the GRID"s power.
Picking and choosing which power plants you want to say your power is coming from is only relevant on the spreadsheet... not reality.
When you import that nuclear power the places you imported it from can't use that nuclear power because YOU took it. Which means they have to rely on other power sources.
What is more, I suspect many of the other countries are double counting non-fossil fuel sources by rephrasing the question or the statistics to say something in one case that outputs one number and then say something that sounds the same but is different and outputs a different number.
The government in the US does this all the time and I've seen the EU do it all the time... and we can see something of this happening with these green energy stuff as well in europe.
Its gotten political and that means it follows political rules.
No you didn't fix it for anyone. You're just throwing a temper tantrum.
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/...
http://www.welt.de/politik/aus...
http://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Naviga...
If you're not able to grasp that Germany is simply one customer on a continent wide energy grid then you can't understand your impact on that grid.
Increasing renewables in Germany is great. But you have no idea how much coal power you're sucking down unless you appreciate where your power imports come from?
what is more this notion that the renewables are not a fucking nightmare to manage in the grid is nonsense:
http://instituteforenergyresea...
Its not a claim. Its a fact.
As to poland phasing out a given type of coal... that doesn't mean their coal power isn't being exported to germany or that they're not building more coal plants rapidly. or that those plants are not being funded by german utilities because the poles need additional funding to get them on line quickly. or that the poles are not planning on building two nuclear power plants largely to service the german energy demand.
Tell you what. Physically cut the cord between Germany and the rest of the grid and german's grid will be able to claim whatever it likes internally. If it is connected to the european grid then there is no such thing as german power. It is european power. Period.
And then you're talking about where the grid in general throughout europe gets its power. And once you do that the numbers look much more like the US numbers.
I'd be shocked if you're getting less than half your power from coal.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
http://quiet-environmentalist....
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-e...
We can get deeper into this if you want. I was sent a bunch of links from a german fellow in this thread that included detailed information about Polish power generation that is expanding to meet german demand.
If you want to talk about energy, then you have to look at the whole grid OR physically cut the connection at the national borders and THEN the national figures will be more reliable.
germany could just buy up all the clean power on the european grid and then call themselves clean. Never mind that the places they buy it from will more often than not fill the void with coal. Meaning whatever it says on paper, the consumption will be fueled by coal. The amount of power supplied by coal is vastly under estimated because it has become politically incorrect to source your power from coal. In the US about half our power comes from coal.
In Europe, it is likely to be higher if only because they have less nuclear power per capita and less hydro electric.
If you're serious, then do comprehensive accounting for any environmental variable that is believed to have a wider scope than any specific jurisdiction. CO2 is supposed to be global. Emissions anywhere that ultimately profit you are relevant.
Imports should have their CO2 debt estimated. The power grid needs to be taken as a single whole rather than presuming to cut CO2 in state X or Y never mind what is happening in state Z.
What germany does matters very little if they are getting power from out of state. Make Germany a net power exporter or at the very least balance them out so they are neutral. Then we don't have to think about the externals as much. Of course... that assumes they are truly neutral and not bouncing their grid all over the place requiring that external markets provide them with reliable power for dead spots which will invariably be supplied by fossil fuels or nuclear.
I don't want to hear about california's rates because there's no such thing. They're members of the national grid at the very least. You can't break it up more finely than that because they're all interconnected. Cut the power leads from cali or make it so the power can only flow out and we could treat cali that way. But if they're importing power than whatever they're doing in the state ceases to matter and you have to look at the whole grid. Then you have to consider that the US grid is actually international just like the Europeans... and power is pushed across the canadian and mexican borders at the very least. It could stretch down into south American for all I know.
I think everything that needs to be said has been said. But if you want to discuss this with me further, log in. There are too many trolls and sock puppets exploiting AC for me to exchange more than a post or two without drawing them like locusts.
It won't happen though. Every climate change or carbon taxation policy that has gotten past the drawing board has conspicuously omitted that feature.
*looks for whether you have finally cited a contrasting reference point*
No contrasting reference point detected. Your concession stands.
Cite a nation or you concede because you lack an argument. I win by default.
How do you not know that you have to actually have a point in there somewhere?
You keep trying to play rhetorical games with me... really dumb ones... and its never going to work against anyone that isn't even more ignorant than you are.
Try harder next time. You're clearly too terrified to actually expose yourself to counter fire in this discussion. Fine. Your terror is merely a sign of my dominance.
Yeah but whether those are wired to anything else is another matter. I don't mind the tech so long as it isn't all networked together for no reason.
As to the HVDC lines, I am aware of them, I don't understand their relevance to the argument.
As to eliminating coal, part of the problem with that is going to be that you run into the same problem that you run into accounting in government.
That is the electricity and the money really are in a giant pool and saying what came from where is not really a valid concept.
For example, lets say I build a nuclear power plant on the east coast, how would I get that power to the west coast? Its very doable but it doesn't work the way that the accounting would suggest it works.
What I would do is supply east coast power utilities with power and then have them forward displaced power in their area to the west where it would be used and then they would displace their usage further west still.
Thus by the time you got to the west coast, the power actually being used would be coming from relatively close to where it is being consumed. However, in the accounting you could say that the community is being supplied by that power plant on the east coast.
You see the same thing in government budget accounting. Once its in the general fund it really is just in the general fund. saying where it came from or what it is intended for isn't relevant until it is literally spent.
My point is that what cali utilities are likely doing is buying up renewable or more acceptable power out of state. And while sure they can claim they're green when they do that, the actual consequence of that is that the various markets they buy that from must themselves shift to more coal because the coal is available and the renewables are all being sold to California largely for political reasons... and I'm sure the Californians will pay more for the renewable power than the locals will so it makes financial sense to sell that where it will make the most money.
But is the actual carbon debt less? Not really because emissions don't actually need to change at all. This is just book keeping. Numbers got moved around on spread sheets.
That isn't real. This is a big problem with statistics. People don't understand how easy it is to bias numbers and studies to say whatever you want them to say. And it makes it very dangerous for people to rely on them when they don't have that background.
To really do proper accounting, you need to evaluate what is going on in the grid in general. If the cali grid is isolated and does not import or export power beyond state lines then we can just talk about cali. But if the cali grid crosses state lines then talking about what cali is doing isn't useful.
Now the US grid so far as I know actually connects to Canada and mexico at the very least. So we probably need to include them as well. Lets look at the generation of all three and that will give us a better idea of what is going on:
From wikipedia I'm also seeing about 70 percent of US power is coming from fossil fuels and about 45 percent of all the power is coming from coal. 20 percent is nuclear and the remainder is renewables. Of the renewables, 6.3 percent is hydro. So... that leaves us about 3.7 for geo thermal, solar, wind, etc. That's a joke.
Lets look at canada...
Fossil fuels make up about 23 percent... figuring out what portion of that comes from coal was not immediately apparent and i don't really care. About 15 percent comes from nuclear and 61 percent comes from hydro. That leaves 1 percent coming from non-hydro renewables. Even worse than the US.
Lets look at Mexico... ... less than a percent of a percent.
Okay... that is what fuels North America. Anything else is just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet. The only relevant renewables being used are old school hydro electric dams. The wind, solar, etc are basically a nusance because they complicate the power grid without really contributing anything meaningful to it.
Now if you want, we can do this in europe but its probably going to come out to a very similar figure. What is going on is that politicians a
So... you are still refusing to cite a nation of comparison between the US thus conceding the argument because you have no contrasting reference.
Done.
Your concession is accepted. It is recommended that you argue against less intelligent or more poorly educated people. You are out of my weight class and you are unable to engage with me on any issue where I have firm footing.
This entire discussion was battleships versus canoes.
I'm sorry if you're shamed by your canoe... Your feelings are not my responsibility.
Good day, sir.
You're not doing it for free... you're getting a salary, health benefits, 401k, etc. Comical.
People are paid well. One of the things people are paid for is to take security seriously. if you're such a little prissy drama queen that you can't handle a company phone which used to be a standard requirement in most companies at one point... then you know what... who wants you? Seriously. You sound like a whiny cunt. If you work with us then you're going to be constantly bitching about something and causing problems. People like you are best not hired in the first place.
You want team players. People that cause problems are more trouble than they're worth.