Any time a country occupies another's territory they will employ its infrastructure and resources to further whatever objectives are profitable for the invading country. In the past it might be industries such as steel production, fuel production, mining of natural resources, plundering of various kinds of stockpiles, utilizing manufacturing to produce weapons and munitions to further increase the power of the invading country. Just because these days those resources can also take the form of technologies (such as internet bandwidth and processing power) it makes them no less valuable or exploitable.
Sorry, I did speak too generically. The point I was intending to get across is that most of the solar being deployed now does not have storage nor inverters capable of meeting demand. For example, say a home has 1,000 watts of solar power and a battery storage array. They may need a 5,000 watt inverter to operate their home, because their peak demand (such as while running a washing machine) will be much greater than what the solar can produce instantaneously. The way power companies are employing solar is to simply feed into the grid when they can, thus they never need more inverter capacity than the maximum the solar panels can produce.
I run a couple FB community groups that are quite specific. They aren't of interest to anyone outside the community. Fairly regularly I will get requests to join the group from obviously fake accounts. Many have the wrong gender for their name or profile picture. They will have a small random assortment of friends from vastly different nationalities. They will belong to multiple groups in multiple languages. Most of them I report to FB are immediately classified by them as fake accounts and are deleted.
Anyway, I wondered what the point was of these fake accounts. I thought maybe they harvested information (by joining groups they could see who is in the groups and thus attempt to build a graph connecting users). However, now I believe these accounts are created to consume advertising in scams such as this one, and at least some attempt is made to make the accounts appear genuine by having an array of friends and belonging to groups, etc.
The market is going to do whatever is cheapest. It is now cheaper to get natural gas out of the ground because of fracking, and the reserves available are so massive that it makes sense to invest in natural gas powerplants as they will be supplied with cheap fuel for a very long time. It is also cheap to burn natural gas because it doesn't require scrubbing and other processing of the emissions to reduce pollution.
The price of solar has continued to drop - panels have been way under a dollar a watt for a while now ($0.79 a watt buying 6,000W of panels at a time, and I'm sure power companies get even better deals buying bigger quantities). The way these are now being utilized (just fed into the grid when they can produce power without battery storage, inverters, etc) is very economical for power companies to invest in.
Coal, on the other hand, is relatively expensive and labor-intensive to get out of the ground, even when strip mining. Further, it takes expensive scrubbers to remove pollutants from the exhaust when it is burnt, which further increases the cost to use coal. Both of those factors combined (fracking and solar prices dropping) simply make other sources of energy cheaper to produce and utilize than coal for generating electricity.
If you were to ask the question "Why didn't we start doing this 20 years ago?" the answer is because we didn't have the technology to mass produce solar this inexpensively, and we didn't have the technology to produce natural gas this inexpensively.
Clinton had more faithless electors than Trump. She had at least 7 - 2 voted for Bernie, and 3 for Powell. One voted for the governor of Ohio, and another for “Faith Spotted Eagle”. However most of those votes didn't count because the elector was automatically replaced or their vote was annulled, depending on the laws of the particular state.
Battery life is lower in remote areas with poor cell coverage for a number of reasons. The radios in the phones transmit at the lowest power needed to maintain a connection. Out in the boonies where the cell towers are just barely in range the phone has to use the maximum wattage which kills the battery. Data rates are usually lower as well (1X or maybe 3G)., which results in longer transmission times to send and receive data, which again kills the battery. So the battery part is no surprise to me. Poor and intermittent data connectivity can also result in applications freezing, and I had at least one older Android phone that would lock up and crash if cell service kept dropping in and out over and over. When riding in the mountains I'd have to just turn it off and only power up to use it when I needed it.
I'm certainly not saying they aren't being monitored or hacked or whatever, but a number of the things they are reporting are normal to those of us who are often out in the country where cell service is marginal.
You have to look back at Nintendo's history of DRM and control over their platform and software. Arguably one of the things that made the NES a success was Nintendo's DRM implementation at a time when it was literally shiny and new. In fact you can argue that Nintendo defined DRM, at least outside of general computing devices / home computers. One of the mistakes Atari made with the 2600 (which probably couldn't be avoided at the time due to the technology available) was no DRM on their cartridge and binary formats. This led to anyone creating games for the platform without Atari getting a cut in the revenue, or having any say so as to the quality and approval process.
So for Nintendo to venture outside of their hardware universe, in which they can satisfy their insecurity with draconian DRM measures at the hardware level, it at least makes sense from a control perspective for them to go overboard with DRM in their first software-only venture. I find it a little interesting in an interview where a Nintendo exec was basically like "The always connected requirement is so we can copy protect the game" as if everyone should totally understand their viewpoint and be in agreement. That was amusing.
Blackouts can occur in the city of a home game if not enough tickets were sold. Often the broadcasting rights are only granted if some minimum amount of seats have been sold. That is to keep the broadcasting of the games from hurting ticket sales. Depending on how many more tickets must be sold in order to allow the game to be broadcast, the network doing the broadcasting will sometimes buy tickets to make up the difference - as long as they still will see a net profit at the end of the bargain.
This mainly affects regions with teams that are doing poorly (I remember blackouts occurring when I was a kid for Cleveland Browns games - not much has changed since then huh?). It was always insulting knowing people in other regions could watch our team play but the local fans could not because enough tickets weren't sold.
Customer firmware is available for many cameras. Seems to me this can be addressed (or maybe it has already?) by 3rd parties. It might not be universal to every brand and model camera, but it should be possible to achieve this on specific models, which the photographers would then select from for use in these kinds of situations.
Apple is about the last company to incorporate new tech into phones
Multi-touch capacitive touch screen. Accelerometers. Reversible data / charging port that can be used when flipped either way. Haptic feedback engine (not talking about just vibration). Using the body of the phone as the antenna. Those are just some I can name off the top of my head.
Just the capacitive touch screen alone is what revolutionized mobile devices.
Both of these design changes (screen taking up the entire face of the device, home button integrated into the display) are also rumors that have been floating around for the iPhone 8. The iPhone 7's design that changed the home button from a physical button to a capacitive touch "button" using the haptic feedback engine was an incremental step towards that end. Samsung is trying to preempt Apple and get a phone to market first that incorporates the rumors of what Apple is going to do.
It's just a friendly competition is all. The Adobe Flash team has a lot of work ahead of them still to catch up to Adobe Reader as the all-time champion of browser-based attack vectors. However they're giving it their best shot.
This actually contributes to the theory of this story. One battery manufacturer used slightly better / thicker insulators between the layers in the battery, thus they better withstood the design flaw that resulted in excessive pressure on the battery. However that just reduced the frequency of failure, but still didn't prevent it entirely.
This is just stupid. Why would anyone ask Twitter to do anything of the sort? It's like asking Ford Motor Company "Would you build electric chairs?" Of course they'll say no, just for the PR and to not alienate customers, since they know the government is not going to ask them to build electric chairs.
The fact of the matter is any of several thousand software companies could easily throw together a registry of this kind. It's straightforward stuff. Heck, outsource it to India. They'd have no problem doing it even knowing what it would be used for.
This is pretty cool. I think in general it's a good idea, however I can see it causing entirely new sets of problems. As drivers we recognize the difference between what we ought to do, and what we must do. For example, there are times when crossing a double yellow line would result in my death, while there are other times I cross the double yellow line safely and without risk to avoid a hazard in my lane or on the shoulder. My concern is people will start seeing these visual aids as things they *must* do. Thus in the process of trying to adhere exactly to the virtual markings, they become oblivious to the actual hazards that are more important. In one of the pictures they show two lane markers projected, which is where the car ideally should travel. On the right there are barriers that are actual hazards that are taking up part of the lane, and to the left is the other lane, which may or may not be an actual hazard. So if I am concentrating on the projected markers (which I assume are "intelligent" because they are dynamic), will it be obvious enough that I am travelling into another lane and that I must make sure the lane is clear of other vehicles first? http://img-2.newatlas.com/merc...
The real question though is this... if the car has that much information about the environment to project images that tell you what to do, why isn't the car doing the driving in the first place?
The theory here is that the speed of light was infinite at the start of the Big Bang, not that it is slowing down. The speed of light is not slowing down, and this has already been proven.
So the speed of light was infinite, but now it is not. That is the very definition of "slowing down" is it not? At which point did it slow down I suppose is my question. If this theory can replace the concept of expansion, then it also must explain the acceleration of the expansion, which is what dark energy is theorized to do. So this theory must somehow take into account dark energy as well, which infers that the speed of light must still be changing since expansion is still accelerating.
Another part of this theory doesn't make sense. If the speed of something is infinite, then the size of the universe must also be infinite to accommodate it, otherwise it would "bunch up" as it hits whatever the "every corner of the cosmos" means (which implies there is a finite size to the universe).
However if you spread a finite amount of energy / matter over an infinite distance, the density would approach zero, thus we would not even perceive that it exists. So I guess this theory assumes there is a finite size to the universe that is independent of the amount of distance or expansion that could happen at the speed of light.
I'm trying to understand how this affects the redshifting of extremely distant objects.
Pretty much any distant stars / galaxies we look at from earth are redshifted, which indicates they are moving away from us. However we know we aren't the center of the universe (where the big bang happened), but that any observer at any other point would see the same affect we see - everything far away is redshifted. This is why we think the universe is expanding - because everything distant is redshifted. Further, the expansion of the universe seems to be increasing, which has resulted in the theory of dark energy to explain why the universe is expanding faster and faster.
However, if the speed of light is slowing, wouldn't it result in the opposite affect (blueshifting)? Photons en route to us from other distant objects (and thus that have been travelling for a very long period of time) are now moving slower than they were at first, according to the theory of this article. If the speed of light is slowing, then that would decrease the wavelength / increase the frequency, which would blueshift, right? Further, the universe isn't just expanding at a static rate, but the expansion is accelerating, hence the theory of dark energy. According to this theory is that explained by the fact that c is still decreasing? If c is decreasing does that mean that the rate of time is also decreasing? Or must that not be the case or otherwise the speed of light would not seem to be changing?
Doesn't even need any changes. They just need to vigorously enforce that rule
Sounds like you're talking about immigration law in general, that everyone is freaking out about on the left with our president-elect. The laws already exist, but what has been happening is "legislation" by the executive branch, by not enforcing law. Another example is the legalization of marijuana at the state level, when it's illegal at the federal level. I'm not attempting to open a debate on whether or not it is right or wrong that the federal government regulates it in the way it does (I am pretty adamant across the board that the Federal government has gotten way too strong and usurped too much power from the states), but what I'm saying is the inaction and lack of enforcement by the executive branch of laws passed by the legislative branch is a misuse of power and an imbalance in the three branches. This has been a problem with previous presidents, but Obama has taken lack of enforcement of law to another level. The judicial branch only gets to rule on cases brought before it, thus if the executive branch does not prosecute in the first place, the judicial branch is also totally removed from the picture.
So in other words, the left has been flipping out over the mere enforcement of existing laws, and the H1-B enforcement is just another example.
This project is to make use of radio frequencies better suited for the task at hand, which is longer-range wireless than WiFi. This can achieve 1km range without the use of directional antennas. I like having options and an array of technologies to choose from, so I don't see anything wrong with them developing hardware to take advantage of this underused radio band.
But he didn't lecture Pence about misogyny or rape
Sure he did. He told Pence to "protect us" and "uphold our unalienable rights." Referring to women as sex objects is in contrast to both of those things.
This is grandstanding to get the British people riled up and get popular opinion to support allocating more money for defense spending. They've set the doomsday date far enough in the future that they have time to let the bureaucrats allocate the money and save the day and keep the missiles on the ships.
The only mainstream media to the right is Fox News. Breitbart is even further right, and that's one of the only other alternatives. However if you look to the left, there are a dozen news organizations (including PBS, which just seems wrong somehow, being government funded).
So what this means is that FB users that identify with the liberal news organizations have their "interactions" divided across those dozen news organizations on the left (CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, Washington Post, on and on). Whereas those with conservative views only had a couple of options to choose from. Thus those couple options on the right got more interactions because they were not diluted across so many news choices.
I think it has a lot less to do with losing - the left has lost before, after all
I disagree. The "left" has lost before, but not the current batch of millennials. You can go back nearly 12 years since the last election won by GOP. Thus any democrat younger than 30 has never voted in a presidential election that they lost, and if they were under 18 then they likely didn't have political convictions of their own anyway when Bush last won.
So yes, I think this has a lot to do with losing. Especially the way that generation is being raised and educated, in a conflict-free, competition-free environment where they do not "win" or "lose", and thus simply have not learned how to accept defeat and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Any time a country occupies another's territory they will employ its infrastructure and resources to further whatever objectives are profitable for the invading country. In the past it might be industries such as steel production, fuel production, mining of natural resources, plundering of various kinds of stockpiles, utilizing manufacturing to produce weapons and munitions to further increase the power of the invading country. Just because these days those resources can also take the form of technologies (such as internet bandwidth and processing power) it makes them no less valuable or exploitable.
Sorry, I did speak too generically. The point I was intending to get across is that most of the solar being deployed now does not have storage nor inverters capable of meeting demand. For example, say a home has 1,000 watts of solar power and a battery storage array. They may need a 5,000 watt inverter to operate their home, because their peak demand (such as while running a washing machine) will be much greater than what the solar can produce instantaneously. The way power companies are employing solar is to simply feed into the grid when they can, thus they never need more inverter capacity than the maximum the solar panels can produce.
I run a couple FB community groups that are quite specific. They aren't of interest to anyone outside the community. Fairly regularly I will get requests to join the group from obviously fake accounts. Many have the wrong gender for their name or profile picture. They will have a small random assortment of friends from vastly different nationalities. They will belong to multiple groups in multiple languages. Most of them I report to FB are immediately classified by them as fake accounts and are deleted.
Anyway, I wondered what the point was of these fake accounts. I thought maybe they harvested information (by joining groups they could see who is in the groups and thus attempt to build a graph connecting users). However, now I believe these accounts are created to consume advertising in scams such as this one, and at least some attempt is made to make the accounts appear genuine by having an array of friends and belonging to groups, etc.
The market is going to do whatever is cheapest. It is now cheaper to get natural gas out of the ground because of fracking, and the reserves available are so massive that it makes sense to invest in natural gas powerplants as they will be supplied with cheap fuel for a very long time. It is also cheap to burn natural gas because it doesn't require scrubbing and other processing of the emissions to reduce pollution.
The price of solar has continued to drop - panels have been way under a dollar a watt for a while now ($0.79 a watt buying 6,000W of panels at a time, and I'm sure power companies get even better deals buying bigger quantities). The way these are now being utilized (just fed into the grid when they can produce power without battery storage, inverters, etc) is very economical for power companies to invest in.
Coal, on the other hand, is relatively expensive and labor-intensive to get out of the ground, even when strip mining. Further, it takes expensive scrubbers to remove pollutants from the exhaust when it is burnt, which further increases the cost to use coal. Both of those factors combined (fracking and solar prices dropping) simply make other sources of energy cheaper to produce and utilize than coal for generating electricity.
If you were to ask the question "Why didn't we start doing this 20 years ago?" the answer is because we didn't have the technology to mass produce solar this inexpensively, and we didn't have the technology to produce natural gas this inexpensively.
Clinton had more faithless electors than Trump. She had at least 7 - 2 voted for Bernie, and 3 for Powell. One voted for the governor of Ohio, and another for “Faith Spotted Eagle”. However most of those votes didn't count because the elector was automatically replaced or their vote was annulled, depending on the laws of the particular state.
Battery life is lower in remote areas with poor cell coverage for a number of reasons. The radios in the phones transmit at the lowest power needed to maintain a connection. Out in the boonies where the cell towers are just barely in range the phone has to use the maximum wattage which kills the battery. Data rates are usually lower as well (1X or maybe 3G)., which results in longer transmission times to send and receive data, which again kills the battery. So the battery part is no surprise to me. Poor and intermittent data connectivity can also result in applications freezing, and I had at least one older Android phone that would lock up and crash if cell service kept dropping in and out over and over. When riding in the mountains I'd have to just turn it off and only power up to use it when I needed it.
I'm certainly not saying they aren't being monitored or hacked or whatever, but a number of the things they are reporting are normal to those of us who are often out in the country where cell service is marginal.
Researchers Find Roads Shatter the Earth's Surface Into 600,000 Fragments
Loaded word presenting a non-neutral POV. Reword and try your submission again.
You have to look back at Nintendo's history of DRM and control over their platform and software. Arguably one of the things that made the NES a success was Nintendo's DRM implementation at a time when it was literally shiny and new. In fact you can argue that Nintendo defined DRM, at least outside of general computing devices / home computers. One of the mistakes Atari made with the 2600 (which probably couldn't be avoided at the time due to the technology available) was no DRM on their cartridge and binary formats. This led to anyone creating games for the platform without Atari getting a cut in the revenue, or having any say so as to the quality and approval process.
So for Nintendo to venture outside of their hardware universe, in which they can satisfy their insecurity with draconian DRM measures at the hardware level, it at least makes sense from a control perspective for them to go overboard with DRM in their first software-only venture. I find it a little interesting in an interview where a Nintendo exec was basically like "The always connected requirement is so we can copy protect the game" as if everyone should totally understand their viewpoint and be in agreement. That was amusing.
Blackouts can occur in the city of a home game if not enough tickets were sold. Often the broadcasting rights are only granted if some minimum amount of seats have been sold. That is to keep the broadcasting of the games from hurting ticket sales. Depending on how many more tickets must be sold in order to allow the game to be broadcast, the network doing the broadcasting will sometimes buy tickets to make up the difference - as long as they still will see a net profit at the end of the bargain.
This mainly affects regions with teams that are doing poorly (I remember blackouts occurring when I was a kid for Cleveland Browns games - not much has changed since then huh?). It was always insulting knowing people in other regions could watch our team play but the local fans could not because enough tickets weren't sold.
Customer firmware is available for many cameras. Seems to me this can be addressed (or maybe it has already?) by 3rd parties. It might not be universal to every brand and model camera, but it should be possible to achieve this on specific models, which the photographers would then select from for use in these kinds of situations.
Apple is about the last company to incorporate new tech into phones
Multi-touch capacitive touch screen. Accelerometers. Reversible data / charging port that can be used when flipped either way. Haptic feedback engine (not talking about just vibration). Using the body of the phone as the antenna. Those are just some I can name off the top of my head.
Just the capacitive touch screen alone is what revolutionized mobile devices.
Both of these design changes (screen taking up the entire face of the device, home button integrated into the display) are also rumors that have been floating around for the iPhone 8. The iPhone 7's design that changed the home button from a physical button to a capacitive touch "button" using the haptic feedback engine was an incremental step towards that end. Samsung is trying to preempt Apple and get a phone to market first that incorporates the rumors of what Apple is going to do.
It's just a friendly competition is all. The Adobe Flash team has a lot of work ahead of them still to catch up to Adobe Reader as the all-time champion of browser-based attack vectors. However they're giving it their best shot.
This actually contributes to the theory of this story. One battery manufacturer used slightly better / thicker insulators between the layers in the battery, thus they better withstood the design flaw that resulted in excessive pressure on the battery. However that just reduced the frequency of failure, but still didn't prevent it entirely.
Maybe someone can use Deepmind to post Slashdot comments more intelligent than the ones for this story so far?
This is just stupid. Why would anyone ask Twitter to do anything of the sort? It's like asking Ford Motor Company "Would you build electric chairs?" Of course they'll say no, just for the PR and to not alienate customers, since they know the government is not going to ask them to build electric chairs.
The fact of the matter is any of several thousand software companies could easily throw together a registry of this kind. It's straightforward stuff. Heck, outsource it to India. They'd have no problem doing it even knowing what it would be used for.
This is pretty cool. I think in general it's a good idea, however I can see it causing entirely new sets of problems. As drivers we recognize the difference between what we ought to do, and what we must do. For example, there are times when crossing a double yellow line would result in my death, while there are other times I cross the double yellow line safely and without risk to avoid a hazard in my lane or on the shoulder. My concern is people will start seeing these visual aids as things they *must* do. Thus in the process of trying to adhere exactly to the virtual markings, they become oblivious to the actual hazards that are more important. In one of the pictures they show two lane markers projected, which is where the car ideally should travel. On the right there are barriers that are actual hazards that are taking up part of the lane, and to the left is the other lane, which may or may not be an actual hazard. So if I am concentrating on the projected markers (which I assume are "intelligent" because they are dynamic), will it be obvious enough that I am travelling into another lane and that I must make sure the lane is clear of other vehicles first?
http://img-2.newatlas.com/merc...
The real question though is this... if the car has that much information about the environment to project images that tell you what to do, why isn't the car doing the driving in the first place?
The theory here is that the speed of light was infinite at the start of the Big Bang, not that it is slowing down. The speed of light is not slowing down, and this has already been proven.
So the speed of light was infinite, but now it is not. That is the very definition of "slowing down" is it not? At which point did it slow down I suppose is my question. If this theory can replace the concept of expansion, then it also must explain the acceleration of the expansion, which is what dark energy is theorized to do. So this theory must somehow take into account dark energy as well, which infers that the speed of light must still be changing since expansion is still accelerating.
Another part of this theory doesn't make sense. If the speed of something is infinite, then the size of the universe must also be infinite to accommodate it, otherwise it would "bunch up" as it hits whatever the "every corner of the cosmos" means (which implies there is a finite size to the universe).
However if you spread a finite amount of energy / matter over an infinite distance, the density would approach zero, thus we would not even perceive that it exists. So I guess this theory assumes there is a finite size to the universe that is independent of the amount of distance or expansion that could happen at the speed of light.
I'm trying to understand how this affects the redshifting of extremely distant objects.
Pretty much any distant stars / galaxies we look at from earth are redshifted, which indicates they are moving away from us. However we know we aren't the center of the universe (where the big bang happened), but that any observer at any other point would see the same affect we see - everything far away is redshifted. This is why we think the universe is expanding - because everything distant is redshifted. Further, the expansion of the universe seems to be increasing, which has resulted in the theory of dark energy to explain why the universe is expanding faster and faster.
However, if the speed of light is slowing, wouldn't it result in the opposite affect (blueshifting)? Photons en route to us from other distant objects (and thus that have been travelling for a very long period of time) are now moving slower than they were at first, according to the theory of this article. If the speed of light is slowing, then that would decrease the wavelength / increase the frequency, which would blueshift, right? Further, the universe isn't just expanding at a static rate, but the expansion is accelerating, hence the theory of dark energy. According to this theory is that explained by the fact that c is still decreasing? If c is decreasing does that mean that the rate of time is also decreasing? Or must that not be the case or otherwise the speed of light would not seem to be changing?
Doesn't even need any changes. They just need to vigorously enforce that rule
Sounds like you're talking about immigration law in general, that everyone is freaking out about on the left with our president-elect. The laws already exist, but what has been happening is "legislation" by the executive branch, by not enforcing law. Another example is the legalization of marijuana at the state level, when it's illegal at the federal level. I'm not attempting to open a debate on whether or not it is right or wrong that the federal government regulates it in the way it does (I am pretty adamant across the board that the Federal government has gotten way too strong and usurped too much power from the states), but what I'm saying is the inaction and lack of enforcement by the executive branch of laws passed by the legislative branch is a misuse of power and an imbalance in the three branches. This has been a problem with previous presidents, but Obama has taken lack of enforcement of law to another level. The judicial branch only gets to rule on cases brought before it, thus if the executive branch does not prosecute in the first place, the judicial branch is also totally removed from the picture.
So in other words, the left has been flipping out over the mere enforcement of existing laws, and the H1-B enforcement is just another example.
This project is to make use of radio frequencies better suited for the task at hand, which is longer-range wireless than WiFi. This can achieve 1km range without the use of directional antennas. I like having options and an array of technologies to choose from, so I don't see anything wrong with them developing hardware to take advantage of this underused radio band.
But he didn't lecture Pence about misogyny or rape
Sure he did. He told Pence to "protect us" and "uphold our unalienable rights." Referring to women as sex objects is in contrast to both of those things.
This is grandstanding to get the British people riled up and get popular opinion to support allocating more money for defense spending. They've set the doomsday date far enough in the future that they have time to let the bureaucrats allocate the money and save the day and keep the missiles on the ships.
Here's why:
http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_...
The only mainstream media to the right is Fox News. Breitbart is even further right, and that's one of the only other alternatives. However if you look to the left, there are a dozen news organizations (including PBS, which just seems wrong somehow, being government funded).
So what this means is that FB users that identify with the liberal news organizations have their "interactions" divided across those dozen news organizations on the left (CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, Washington Post, on and on). Whereas those with conservative views only had a couple of options to choose from. Thus those couple options on the right got more interactions because they were not diluted across so many news choices.
I think it has a lot less to do with losing - the left has lost before, after all
I disagree. The "left" has lost before, but not the current batch of millennials. You can go back nearly 12 years since the last election won by GOP. Thus any democrat younger than 30 has never voted in a presidential election that they lost, and if they were under 18 then they likely didn't have political convictions of their own anyway when Bush last won.
So yes, I think this has a lot to do with losing. Especially the way that generation is being raised and educated, in a conflict-free, competition-free environment where they do not "win" or "lose", and thus simply have not learned how to accept defeat and move on.