> In fact the UK government has been insulating people's houses for free, or very low cost.
The people installing the installation don't work for free. The truck driver delivering the installation doesn't work for free. The people making the insulation don't work for free. The inspectors at the insulation plant don't work for free. Guess where $5,000 of extra taxes went.
Moreover, the lady who wrote the thousand -page government requisition for the program doesn't work for free, and neither do all the people involved in navigating the bureaucracy to win the bid for a particular company. Guess where another $3,000 of your taxes went on that program.
> Did you consider that perhaps people can change their habits so that they need less energy?
If I smash your car, you CAN walk, and it'll reduce CO2, so let's do that. Yes, people will find a way to survive a 15%-20% power cut, but ignoring that cost is error. Half of energy usage is transportation, so when energy is less affordable, that actually means people go fewer places - some skip their summer vacation, etc.
You say people can buy more insulation. Okay, let's pretend that doubling all of the insulation on the house would offset half of the 15%-20% energy reduction. At a cost of $5,000 each. Making you pay $5,000 to double the insulation on your house has no effect on you, because you were just going to throw away that $5,000 otherwise, right?
> Also, Ireland?
I'm Scotch Irish, it's all the same to me.:) Seriously, that was a silly error, but completely irrelevant. People in Scotland and Ireland both use transportation, heating, etc. (Ie most of their energy demand is not electricity). Do s/Ireland/Scotland/ and nothing changes.
The rates I mentioned above for "similar software" meant for software of the kind I write (network security), not the TSA app. For a random left/right app like the TSA wanted, prices would be a bit lower. Not much lower for the federal government though, they'll require a thousand man hours of BS for the simplest application. I used to work at a place that did federal contracts.
Seriously, 80%-85% of the bid covers dealing with the US government. Multiple thousand-documents over the course of years, flying back and forth for pointless meetings, and maybe you eventually get paid.
Here are my rates as a developer , for similar software delivered: Order online, by submitting my order form: $159 Email me and discuss: $500 Meetings to discuss, demo (local businesses): $1,500 Local government bureaucracy: $8,000 Federal government: $400,000
> Are you seriously suggesting that, after electricity demand dropped 15%, the suppliers did not reduce electricity generation?
No, I'm saying that smashing your car will reduce your C02 footprint. HOWEVER, it will also leave you without transportation, and any judgement about policies should recognize that cost.
Let's try this again. It's about the difference between energy demand (what people need/want/used to have) versus what they got after the market was artificially limited.
Pretend the government shut down all gas stations, all supply of heating oil, and all of the other energy other than electric. So nobody can drive, groceries don't get delivered, people freeze to death, etc. They then announce they've achieved 100% renewable energy.
The claim of "100% renewable energy" would be both completely true and completely false. True, 100% of the energy ACTUALLY SUPPLIED would be from renewables, but that was done by not providing 75% of the energy NEEDED. Do you see the issue there? If I stick you in a cage and give you a piece of paper and claim "that piece of paper will provide all of your nutrition" that's true - you're not getting any other nutrition, but it's not meeting any of your nutritional NEEDS. With me so far?
Obviously any policy which causes people to make due with less should recognize that cost, that distinction between meeting the needs/wants vs cutting people off. In this case, people got 15% less electricity. That should be accounted for if you want to accurately understand the results of the policies.
People have budgets. They get a certain paycheck each week. When electricity rates went up significantly to pay for renewable subsidies, people bought less electricity - 15% less. they spent a little bit money, and for that they got 15% energy. The usage prior to the increase shows the natural consumption - the amount people need/want at natural market rates. After the manipulation, they didn't that much. Renewables (and all other sources) didn't provide for the actual demand, 15% LESS electricity was provided than a few years before.
I don't recall which I looked at before, but for both countries the majority of their energy isn't electricity. Specifically, both are similar in that they use significant energy for heating, whereas some countries don't. Details for each can be found at www.eaia.gov.
Because they are neighbors geographically, they're working within the same parameters as far as the availability of geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, etc. Within that envelope, they can trade reliability and cost for "political greeness" in roughly similar ways.
I say "political greeness" because for example by any objective measure, hydro has done far, far more damage to the environment than nuclear, but hydro is politically considered "green", while nuclear has been labeled "scary" by green activists until recently. Energy policy at a national level is of course political in nature, so it's the political green points that matter, not the actual impact.
Sharp readers will notice that the summary contradicts the headline, then makes a meaningless calculation, dividing apples by oranges.
First, as is typical of green fluff pieces, they conflate energy with electricity. Electricity accounts for about 35% of Ireland's energy usage. If renewables provided half of the -electricity-, that would be 17% of the -energy-.
Secondly, they've improperly conflated consumption with production. You could produce terawatts of energy in the summer and use to heat molten salt for a month and that does squat for you when the bulk of consumption is winter heating.
Roughly 8% of energy consumed was produced by renewable sources. This is hard to measure for certain, so call it 5%-15%.
Electricity consumption has dropped by 15% as prices have increased over the last five years in order to pay for the more-expensive renewables. If we add back the 15% of electricity people wanted but weren't able to use because it was too expensive, we get 35% of 35% = 12% of Ireland's energy needs were matched by their renewable production.
If the paragraph above doesn't isn't entirely clear, consider this. The government could shut down all gas pumps, all natural gas service, and most of the electric power plants, then correctly claim that 100% of their energy consumed was coming from renewables. That would be true, but horribly misleading because it measures energy consumed rather than energy demand - what people WANTED to use. The article has committed the same error, in a less extreme fashion, by ignoring the drop in consumption caused by higher prices - people wanted to continue to use more energy, but couldn't do so with the same paycheck.
Yep, North Korea would be able to use the 2.4 million lines of Java that makes up the bulk of healthcare.gov, if it had been developed under this policy. The US would then hope that NK actually tried to use it for something important.
Yes. Keep in mind that top executives typically don't know the people six or eight levels down the chain of command who actually do the work. Nor do they typically know much about the work that those front-line people do. At the top, specifics are lost, they manage DIVISIONS, not people or projects. It's their job to buy and sell entire companies, like buying Nokia or Motorola. So everything comes down to dollars (with a pinch corporate vision mixed in).
For Gates and Balmer, Linux and open source threatened to take away billions of dollars of sales. Microsoft's dominance could only be conceivably threatened by Linux or Apple. Gates saw no good in FOSS, it was simply one of two threats to Microsoft's position.
Now, Linux and open source have become a source of REVENUE for Microsoft . Rather than being purely a threat, the Android patent royalties are Microsoft's primary revenue in mobile. So yes, that is part of Microsoft seeing open source as an opportunity rather than a threat. Android is bringing Microsoft two billion dollars each year. Two billion dollars a year would certainly change my point of view!
That's exactly it. Over 90% of millionaires in America are retirees who made less than $100,000, invested about 15% of what they made, and are now self-sufficient because while they were "little guys", they were also owners of big businesses.
I was earning $50,000 and investing 10%, becoming an owner (stockholder) in Google and dozens of other companies. Public companies are THE major way that the "little guy" can get ahead and have the same advantageous that owners of big companies have - because investors ARE owners of businesses.
> It looks like a stripper (sans bra) wearing a rodent mask to me. I really, really doubt that's what you intended I, the recipient, to see.
That's pretty it. We'll spot a potentially sexy member of the opposite gender in the dark at 200 yards. Even if the pattern of lines looks quite rodent-like, we'll spot those tits.:)
In tests, I found we're better at distinguishing a man vs a woman than we are a man vs a fire hydrant - we'll "see" a man 200-300 yards out in the dark (black and white vision) even if that "man shape" is actually a fire hydrant. We know the curves of a woman when we see them though.
I did some research on what humans are better at than computers, in order to develop a replacement for CAPTCHA. I found that indeed, humans, especially through our visual and auditory systems, WILL detect a pattern - even when there is no pattern. Our brain are very, very attuned to seeing patterns.
What I ended up using for my non-captcha was our amazing ability to instantly spot and categorize this type of pattern:
With the change to longer life cycles, the production phase ends on November 30, 2020 and the four-year extended support period goes to 2024. https://access.redhat.com/supp...
You are correct that new hardware support will not be added as long as I indicated. However, GP specifically said security updates, and there are 8 more years of important security updates, including four years left in the ten-year "production" phase.
A long term stable distribution might fit your needs better than a bleeding-edge distro like Fedora. For example Red Hat 6 (aka CentOS) doesn't have systemd and it will get security updates for eight more years. It will get updates for new hardware and other general updates through 2020, four more years.
The study found that while conscientious people noticed, less agreeable people (assholes) were bothered by typos. Quoting the fine summary:
Participants were asked at the end of the experiment whether or not they'd spotted any grammatical errors or typos in the emails, and, if so, how much it had bothered them....
People who tested as being more conscientious but less open were more sensitive to typos, while those with less agreeable personalities got more upset by grammatical errors.
> I was recently using Intel software raid (isw, aka fakeraid) to mirror my root flash drives. Big mistake! The dmraid package...
Indeed. I tried out all the different kinds of RAID and settled on mdadm. Hardware RAID is handy if you're using a CPU from 1999 and also don't need any flexibility. LVM mirrors are a handy way to make a one-time copy of data.
One way to prevent this is to use KILLABLE system calls instead of blocking ones. The _killable versions block just like blocking mode, but they allow kill -9 to work. The userspace program doesn't have to worry about handling half-completed io, because it dies without passing go.
Those will show D state in ps, indicating that the process is waiting on the kernel. Frequently it's waiting for blocking io - it has asked the kernel for some disk block and won't do anything else until the kernel wakes it up when the data is available. The program code itself isn't running on the cpu at this point, the kernel code is (and the kernel thread may be deadlocked).
I helped fix such an issue related to LVM on top of RAID1, where it was possible for LVM the lvm layer to be waiting on the raid layer, while the raid layer was waiting on the LVM layer.
Recent (two years ago?) kernels handle D state processes better.
That article rants about two things, section 199 and the foreign tax deduction. Since you either don't care to spend two minutes looking up what those are, or your Google-fu is weak, I'll explain them for you.
Section 199 of the tax code is designed to discourage offshoring work to China and India. It applies to businesses which do any of the following within the US (or mostly within the US): The manufacture, production, growth, or extraction by the taxpayer of tangible personal property (things). This encompasses all tangible property (except land and buildings). Create computer software or sound recordings. The production of films The production of electricity, natural gas, or water The construction of real property (buildings) The services of architecture/engineering
In other words, most businesses that do their work in the US, rather than having it made/done elsewhere and only marketed in the US.
Explain to me how a tax provision that applies to any manufacturing, film production, software programming, music, construction, etc is magically a "special break for oil companies". They lied to you, bro.
Secondly, the article talks about the foreign tax deduction. The US taxes companies a bit more on foreign activities than any other country, but this deduction gets us a bit closer to what every other country in the world does. Suppose Ford, a multinational company headquartered in the US, has a factory in Australia, where they have Australian workers making Australian cars which are sold in Australia. Of course, they pay Australian income tax on these Australian dollar profits. If Ford were headquartered in other country, that would be the end of it. Because they are headquartered in the US, they have to pay double income tax on the Australia sales - first in Australia, then again in the US.
Before th deduction was added, in some cases that double taxation could create a total tax rate close to 100%. They might pay 10% income tax in Melbourne, 25% to Australia, 35% to the US, and 15% to the state. So 85% tax rate altogether. The deduction says that if they earned $100 in Australia and pay $35 in Australian income tax, they "only" get double taxed on the remaining $65. That applies to all businesses and natural persons. Absolutely nothing special about energy companies there. It simply says that anyone who pays foreign income tax gets double-taxed on the remaining money rather than being double-taxed on the total.
> The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them?
I have a legal right to shit in a cup, smear it all over my balls, then rub my shit-covered balls against the wall, so why is it your choice whether you will help me do so?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're right, maybe some people did pay $8.00 for an LED to replace a 39 cent bulb.
So you were telling me about why cutting your electricity usage 20% has no costs? Go ahead with that.
s/installation/insulation/
> In fact the UK government has been insulating people's houses for free, or very low cost.
The people installing the installation don't work for free. The truck driver delivering the installation doesn't work for free. The people making the insulation don't work for free. The inspectors at the insulation plant don't work for free. Guess where $5,000 of extra taxes went.
Moreover, the lady who wrote the thousand -page government requisition for the program doesn't work for free, and neither do all the people involved in navigating the bureaucracy to win the bid for a particular company. Guess where another $3,000 of your taxes went on that program.
Reply to This Share
> Did you consider that perhaps people can change their habits so that they need less energy?
If I smash your car, you CAN walk, and it'll reduce CO2, so let's do that. Yes, people will find a way to survive a 15%-20% power cut, but ignoring that cost is error. Half of energy usage is transportation, so when energy is less affordable, that actually means people go fewer places - some skip their summer vacation, etc.
You say people can buy more insulation. Okay, let's pretend that doubling all of the insulation on the house would offset half of the 15%-20% energy reduction. At a cost of $5,000 each. Making you pay $5,000 to double the insulation on your house has no effect on you, because you were just going to throw away that $5,000 otherwise, right?
> Also, Ireland?
I'm Scotch Irish, it's all the same to me. :) Seriously, that was a silly error, but completely irrelevant. People in Scotland and Ireland both use transportation, heating, etc. (Ie most of their energy demand is not electricity). Do s/Ireland/Scotland/ and nothing changes.
The rates I mentioned above for "similar software" meant for software of the kind I write (network security), not the TSA app. For a random left/right app like the TSA wanted, prices would be a bit lower. Not much lower for the federal government though, they'll require a thousand man hours of BS for the simplest application. I used to work at a place that did federal contracts.
Seriously, 80%-85% of the bid covers dealing with the US government. Multiple thousand-documents over the course of years, flying back and forth for pointless meetings, and maybe you eventually get paid.
Here are my rates as a developer , for similar software delivered:
Order online, by submitting my order form: $159
Email me and discuss: $500
Meetings to discuss, demo (local businesses): $1,500
Local government bureaucracy: $8,000
Federal government: $400,000
> Are you seriously suggesting that, after electricity demand dropped 15%, the suppliers did not reduce electricity generation?
No, I'm saying that smashing your car will reduce your C02 footprint. HOWEVER, it will also leave you without transportation, and any judgement about policies should recognize that cost.
Let's try this again. It's about the difference between energy demand (what people need/want/used to have) versus what they got after the market was artificially limited.
Pretend the government shut down all gas stations, all supply of heating oil, and all of the other energy other than electric. So nobody can drive, groceries don't get delivered, people freeze to death, etc. They then announce they've achieved 100% renewable energy.
The claim of "100% renewable energy" would be both completely true and completely false. True, 100% of the energy ACTUALLY SUPPLIED would be from renewables, but that was done by not providing 75% of the energy NEEDED. Do you see the issue there? If I stick you in a cage and give you a piece of paper and claim "that piece of paper will provide all of your nutrition" that's true - you're not getting any other nutrition, but it's not meeting any of your nutritional NEEDS. With me so far?
Obviously any policy which causes people to make due with less should recognize that cost, that distinction between meeting the needs/wants vs cutting people off. In this case, people got 15% less electricity. That should be accounted for if you want to accurately understand the results of the policies.
People have budgets. They get a certain paycheck each week. When electricity rates went up significantly to pay for renewable subsidies, people bought less electricity - 15% less. they spent a little bit money, and for that they got 15% energy. The usage prior to the increase shows the natural consumption - the amount people need/want at natural market rates. After the manipulation, they didn't that much. Renewables (and all other sources) didn't provide for the actual demand, 15% LESS electricity was provided than a few years before.
I don't recall which I looked at before, but for both countries the majority of their energy isn't electricity.
Specifically, both are similar in that they use significant energy for heating, whereas some countries don't. Details for each can be found at www.eaia.gov.
Because they are neighbors geographically, they're working within the same parameters as far as the availability of geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, etc. Within that envelope, they can trade reliability and cost for "political greeness" in roughly similar ways.
I say "political greeness" because for example by any objective measure, hydro has done far, far more damage to the environment than nuclear, but hydro is politically considered "green", while nuclear has been labeled "scary" by green activists until recently. Energy policy at a national level is of course political in nature, so it's the political green points that matter, not the actual impact.
Sharp readers will notice that the summary contradicts the headline, then makes a meaningless calculation, dividing apples by oranges.
First, as is typical of green fluff pieces, they conflate energy with electricity. Electricity accounts for about 35% of Ireland's energy usage. If renewables provided half of the -electricity-, that would be 17% of the -energy-.
Secondly, they've improperly conflated consumption with production. You could produce terawatts of energy in the summer and use to heat molten salt for a month and that does squat for you when the bulk of consumption is winter heating.
Roughly 8% of energy consumed was produced by renewable sources. This is hard to measure for certain, so call it 5%-15%.
Electricity consumption has dropped by 15% as prices have increased over the last five years in order to pay for the more-expensive renewables. If we add back the 15% of electricity people wanted but weren't able to use because it was too expensive, we get 35% of 35% = 12% of Ireland's energy needs were matched by their renewable production.
If the paragraph above doesn't isn't entirely clear, consider this. The government could shut down all gas pumps, all natural gas service, and most of the electric power plants, then correctly claim that 100% of their energy consumed was coming from renewables. That would be true, but horribly misleading because it measures energy consumed rather than energy demand - what people WANTED to use. The article has committed the same error, in a less extreme fashion, by ignoring the drop in consumption caused by higher prices - people wanted to continue to use more energy, but couldn't do so with the same paycheck.
For voice over IP, 128kbps with very low jitter and low latency will give ideal results. More bandwidth will neither help nor hurt.
For Netflix, it's all about about bandwidth, jitter doesn't matter at all and latency barely matters.
For ssh, it's all about latency. Bandwidth and jitter don't matter. (Assuming at least 28kbps).
It's a bit confusing for the average consumer. Heck, the average Slashdot reader doesn't know what jitter is.
Yep, North Korea would be able to use the 2.4 million lines of Java that makes up the bulk of healthcare.gov, if it had been developed under this policy. The US would then hope that NK actually tried to use it for something important.
Yes. Keep in mind that top executives typically don't know the people six or eight levels down the chain of command who actually do the work. Nor do they typically know much about the work that those front-line people do. At the top, specifics are lost, they manage DIVISIONS, not people or projects. It's their job to buy and sell entire companies, like buying Nokia or Motorola. So everything comes down to dollars (with a pinch corporate vision mixed in).
For Gates and Balmer, Linux and open source threatened to take away billions of dollars of sales. Microsoft's dominance could only be conceivably threatened by Linux or Apple. Gates saw no good in FOSS, it was simply one of two threats to Microsoft's position.
Now, Linux and open source have become a source of REVENUE for Microsoft . Rather than being purely a threat, the Android patent royalties are Microsoft's primary revenue in mobile. So yes, that is part of Microsoft seeing open source as an opportunity rather than a threat. Android is bringing Microsoft two billion dollars each year. Two billion dollars a year would certainly change my point of view!
That's exactly it. Over 90% of millionaires in America are retirees who made less than $100,000, invested about 15% of what they made, and are now self-sufficient because while they were "little guys", they were also owners of big businesses.
I was earning $50,000 and investing 10%, becoming an owner (stockholder) in Google and dozens of other companies. Public companies are THE major way that the "little guy" can get ahead and have the same advantageous that owners of big companies have - because investors ARE owners of businesses.
> It looks like a stripper (sans bra) wearing a rodent mask to me. I really, really doubt that's what you intended I, the recipient, to see.
That's pretty it. We'll spot a potentially sexy member of the opposite gender in the dark at 200 yards. Even if the pattern of lines looks quite rodent-like, we'll spot those tits. :)
In tests, I found we're better at distinguishing a man vs a woman than we are a man vs a fire hydrant - we'll "see" a man 200-300 yards out in the dark (black and white vision) even if that "man shape" is actually a fire hydrant. We know the curves of a woman when we see them though.
I did some research on what humans are better at than computers, in order to develop a replacement for CAPTCHA. I found that indeed, humans, especially through our visual and auditory systems, WILL detect a pattern - even when there is no pattern. Our brain are very, very attuned to seeing patterns.
/ \ .) .)\
What I ended up using for my non-captcha was our amazing ability to instantly spot and categorize this type of pattern:
((* *|)
)_\o/_)
(
//(
With the change to longer life cycles, the production phase ends on November 30, 2020 and the four-year extended support period goes to 2024.
https://access.redhat.com/supp...
You are correct that new hardware support will not be added as long as I indicated. However, GP specifically said security updates, and there are 8 more years of important security updates, including four years left in the ten-year "production" phase.
A long term stable distribution might fit your needs better than a bleeding-edge distro like Fedora. For example Red Hat 6 (aka CentOS) doesn't have systemd and it will get security updates for eight more years. It will get updates for new hardware and other general updates through 2020, four more years.
I accidentally submitted too soon. That's true, the summary does say they tested both misspellings/ typos and grammar errors.
However, it ALSO says participants were asked a) if they noticed the errors AND b) how much it bothered them.
To fully understand the results one might have to (gasp) read the article.
Indeed the summary doesn't make clear
The study found that while conscientious people noticed, less agreeable people (assholes) were bothered by typos. Quoting the fine summary:
Participants were asked at the end of the experiment whether or not they'd spotted any grammatical errors or typos in the emails, and, if so, how much it had bothered them. ...
People who tested as being more conscientious but less open were more sensitive to typos, while those with less agreeable personalities got more upset by grammatical errors.
> I was recently using Intel software raid (isw, aka fakeraid) to mirror my root flash drives. Big mistake! The dmraid package ...
Indeed. I tried out all the different kinds of RAID and settled on mdadm. Hardware RAID is handy if you're using a CPU from 1999 and also don't need any flexibility. LVM mirrors are a handy way to make a one-time copy of data.
One way to prevent this is to use KILLABLE system calls instead of blocking ones. The _killable versions block just like blocking mode, but they allow kill -9 to work. The userspace program doesn't have to worry about handling half-completed io, because it dies without passing go.
Those will show D state in ps, indicating that the process is waiting on the kernel. Frequently it's waiting for blocking io - it has asked the kernel for some disk block and won't do anything else until the kernel wakes it up when the data is available. The program code itself isn't running on the cpu at this point, the kernel code is (and the kernel thread may be deadlocked).
I helped fix such an issue related to LVM on top of RAID1, where it was possible for LVM the lvm layer to be waiting on the raid layer, while the raid layer was waiting on the LVM layer.
Recent (two years ago?) kernels handle D state processes better.
That article rants about two things, section 199 and the foreign tax deduction. Since you either don't care to spend two minutes looking up what those are, or your Google-fu is weak, I'll explain them for you.
Section 199 of the tax code is designed to discourage offshoring work to China and India. It applies to businesses which do any of the following within the US (or mostly within the US):
The manufacture, production, growth, or extraction by the taxpayer of tangible personal property (things). This encompasses all tangible property (except land and buildings).
Create computer software or sound recordings.
The production of films
The production of electricity, natural gas, or water
The construction of real property (buildings)
The services of architecture/engineering
In other words, most businesses that do their work in the US, rather than having it made/done elsewhere and only marketed in the US.
Explain to me how a tax provision that applies to any manufacturing, film production, software programming, music, construction, etc is magically a "special break for oil companies". They lied to you, bro.
Secondly, the article talks about the foreign tax deduction. The US taxes companies a bit more on foreign activities than any other country, but this deduction gets us a bit closer to what every other country in the world does. Suppose Ford, a multinational company headquartered in the US, has a factory in Australia, where they have Australian workers making Australian cars which are sold in Australia. Of course, they pay Australian income tax on these Australian dollar profits. If Ford were headquartered in other country, that would be the end of it. Because they are headquartered in the US, they have to pay double income tax on the Australia sales - first in Australia, then again in the US.
Before th deduction was added, in some cases that double taxation could create a total tax rate close to 100%. They might pay 10% income tax in Melbourne, 25% to Australia, 35% to the US, and 15% to the state. So 85% tax rate altogether. The deduction says that if they earned $100 in Australia and pay $35 in Australian income tax, they "only" get double taxed on the remaining $65. That applies to all businesses and natural persons. Absolutely nothing special about energy companies there. It simply says that anyone who pays foreign income tax gets double-taxed on the remaining money rather than being double-taxed on the total.
> The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them?
I have a legal right to shit in a cup, smear it all over my balls, then rub my shit-covered balls against the wall, so why is it your choice whether you will help me do so?