"Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment."
So, they dox anybody who complains about a hate site. Charming.
That allows the attacker to direct a target's text messages to another device, and, in the case of the bank accounts, steal any codes needed to login or greenlight money transfers (after the hackers obtained victim passwords).
...
"Everyone's accounts protected by text-based two-factor authentication, such as bank accounts, are potentially at risk until the FCC and telecom industry fix the devastating SS7 security flaw," Lieu said in a statement published Wednesday...
In the meantime, and maybe irrespective of whether SS7 problems are ever fixed, social media companies, banks, and other online services need to stop using SMS-based two-factor authentication. Last year the National Institute of Standards and Technology said it was no longer recommending solutions that used SMS.
We could have seen a change in transportation if cars (or trucks) had switched to ethanol or biodiesel in significant amounds, which they haven't, or if electric cars had become a significant part of the market (in which case their carbon intensity should mirror electric power). So, the lack of change in transport just tells you that the fuel for transportation hasn't changed, which is not particularly news.
I feel like we are sliding into semantics and grammar. Let's shift direction a bit - being honest, did you learn anything from the article?
Yes, I learned that several segments of energy use have been slowly shifting from higher carbon-intensive fuels to lower carbon-intensive fuels, but that transportation has not.
I'm not sure why you say that this is "gives no information." A better statement would be "this measure does not give information about the things that I happen to want information about." That's correct. It measures something else.
Specifically, it measures carbon intensity, which is a measurement of how much carbon is in the fuel-- basically, it's talking about the fuel source, not the end use. If that doesn't happen to be what you're interested in that, fine enough, but it is not "meaningless".
...when you consider that wind/solar are getting something like 400x the subsidies per megawatt hour that coal, oil, and ng are receiving.
Depends on how you count subsidies. Typical subsidies quoted for fossil fuel production are quoted at $27 billion per year (http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/07/OCI_US_FF_Subsidies_Final_Screen.pdf ), and more for transporting the fuel. Much more, of course, if you count the cost of providing security in the Middle East, which many people think we only do because of the oil.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
Maybe the massively regressive impacts of the increased cost of energy under Obama will be reversed and lower- and middle-class people will benefit...
Uh, there was no " increased cost of energy under Obama". During the Obama administration, the cost of fossil fuels dropped from the levels during the Bush administration.
Even for electrical energy, the price increased only at the rate of inflation. In constant dollars, the cost remained constant. (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.03.16/realnominal.png )
Basically every carbon atom that goes into your tank comes out the tailpipe as soot, CO2, and a very smalll quantity (these days) of unburned alkanes. Since that means that the CO2 emitted per unit consumed by the engine is approximately constant...
No, it's not constant. Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon emitted per unit energy (not per unit carbon). If you're burning hydrogen, your carbon intensity is zero. If you're burning anthracite, your carbon intensity is 104. If you're burning natural gas, your carbon intensity is halfway in between.
Carbon intensity is a measure of what's in your fuel. Basically, it tells you how much carbon was in the fuel producing your energy.
It's not a "retarded" measurement, it just doesn't happen to be a measurement of what you think it should measure.
Carbon intensity is not efficiency, which is what you seem to be interested in.
Carbon intensity is, instead, a measure of where the energy comes from: not how efficiently it is used; but, how much of the energy comes from oxidizing carbon instead of from some other source.
If you divide carbon intensity (carbon per million BTUs of energy) by the efficiency (amount of produce product per million BTUs of energy) you would get a measure of the carbon emitted per unit of product. So the carbon intensity is one factor in the greenhouse emissions, but not the only factor. It's the factor that accounts for the fuel type.
Not quite. Studios can buy scripts not written by guild members, but the WGA does want writers to join the guild after selling a certain number of scripts.
Basically, the WGA is a union. They work to prevent the studios from shafting the writers, which is something that the studios are notorious for doing. (the old saw used to be that (for some studios) payment was "on receipt of lawsuit.")
If you don't like what they write, watch something else, or don't watch at all.
I'd say that the most important element of a television show or a movie is the writing-- if it's badly written and doesn't make any sense, it hardly matters whether the acting and cinematography are good or bad. But your mileage may vary.
Ever hear of those things called the Rocky Mountains?
I appreciate your condescending, smug response.
This is slashdot. If it were reddit, the response would be condescending and smug, but also profane and insulting.
I liked it so much I poked around and found that Kinder Morgan built a pipeline across the Canadian rockies in the 50s and expanded it in 2004. It can transport 300k barrels a day and there are proposals to triple it. For comparison, Keystone is ~500k barrels/day.
Just because somebody can do something doesn't mean that if there is a more efficient way to do it, you wouldn't prefer to do it that way. If a shorter route crossing the Rockies had actually been a more efficient way to transport oil than a longer pipeline not crossing the mountains, you would expect that other companies would have emulated this pipeline. But they didn't.
So you're completely totally wrong. Put that in your pipe and send it over the rockies!
+1 funny from me for the double-entendre metaphor.
The jobs aren't coming back. If coal production increases, the jobs that come back are going to Wyoming, not Kentucky, because the coal mining there uses fewer people and thus costs less.
"Uses fewer people and thus costs less" means "the jobs move there, but there aren't going to be very many of them."
Most of us don't have that option - our companies are not going to keep us on until we die. We'll get downsized, outsourced, etc. at least once or twice and then not hired on anyplace else because of rampant age discrimination. After all, with more available workforce every year,
Demographics say otherwise. The demographic data, in this case, are helping you (assuming you want to stay employed...)
The reason for age discrimination is that employers can. That's because the baby boom generation means that there are an excess of population; you can afford to not hire the older ones, 'cause there's plenty of people looking for jobs. But the baby boom was last millennium.
it isn't like there are going to be enough jobs to go around.
That demographic bulge is over-- by the time millennials are ready to retire, there won't be that big bulge of population. We'll be in the population decline segment of the demographics. Too few people, not too many.
You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?
See my other post in this thread about the General Welfare clause.
You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states, and the ability of the Feds to lay taxation for that purpose.
No, it doesn't.
Where the hell do you get these bullshit interpretations?
The meaning of the "welfare" in 1787 meant health and prosperity. Of the people. You know, that "we the people" thing? People.
You don't say how old you are now, but if you're age 40, your life expectancy is another 40 years, so you have 15 years unaccounted for. On the average
The commenters here aren't to be blamed. Blame msmash and the other Slashdot editors for putting these shitty submissions on the front page multiple times every day.... So when a quarter of each day's front page submissions are about "climate change" in some way, then of course climate change is what we'll be stuck discussing.
I counted the headlines before this one, and out of the 50 posts in the last two days, exactly one ("China To Boost Non-Fossil Fuel Use To 20 Percent By 2030 (reuters.com)") was related to climate. Another one, ("The EPA Won't Be Shutting Down Its Open Data Website After All (mashable.com)") could be considered slightly somewhat peripherally related.
So, that's--at most--two out of fifty: four percent. Your claim "a quarter of each day's front page submissions are about "climate change"" is bullshit.
The Keystone pipline is a device designed to ship Canadian oil to China. The United States is not really involved, except as a place that the oil passes over on the way from Canada to China.
To the extent that America is involved, it is mainly a device to reduce American exports of oil, by replacing American exports with cheaper Canadian exports.
Sarcasm aside, that is exactly why coal jobs are not coming back. Coal production is in fact very close to an all-time high in the United States-- we're mining about 900 million tons a year, more coal now than we did in 1990 (or any year before then).
But we're doing it with machinery now, not with coal miners. Even if coal production increases, the jobs ain't coming back.
Slashdot Mirror
don't forget that part.
"Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment."
So, they dox anybody who complains about a hate site. Charming.
That allows the attacker to direct a target's text messages to another device, and, in the case of the bank accounts, steal any codes needed to login or greenlight money transfers (after the hackers obtained victim passwords).
... "Everyone's accounts protected by text-based two-factor authentication, such as bank accounts, are potentially at risk until the FCC and telecom industry fix the devastating SS7 security flaw," Lieu said in a statement published Wednesday...
In the meantime, and maybe irrespective of whether SS7 problems are ever fixed, social media companies, banks, and other online services need to stop using SMS-based two-factor authentication. Last year the National Institute of Standards and Technology said it was no longer recommending solutions that used SMS.
We could have seen a change in transportation if cars (or trucks) had switched to ethanol or biodiesel in significant amounds, which they haven't, or if electric cars had become a significant part of the market (in which case their carbon intensity should mirror electric power). So, the lack of change in transport just tells you that the fuel for transportation hasn't changed, which is not particularly news.
... To be fair, they also tend to put UX and design ahead of functionality, which helps with their image.
I consider the user interface to be the single most important part of functionality, so the fact that they prioritize UX is not "image" in my opinion.
I feel like we are sliding into semantics and grammar. Let's shift direction a bit - being honest, did you learn anything from the article?
Yes, I learned that several segments of energy use have been slowly shifting from higher carbon-intensive fuels to lower carbon-intensive fuels, but that transportation has not.
And the environmental cost of ripping out 100 years worth of gasoline delivery infrastructure and replacing it with "something else"...
If there's any hundred year old infrastructure still in use, I expect we should rip it out and replace it with something else.
Specifically, it measures carbon intensity, which is a measurement of how much carbon is in the fuel-- basically, it's talking about the fuel source, not the end use. If that doesn't happen to be what you're interested in that, fine enough, but it is not "meaningless".
...when you consider that wind/solar are getting something like 400x the subsidies per megawatt hour that coal, oil, and ng are receiving.
Depends on how you count subsidies. Typical subsidies quoted for fossil fuel production are quoted at $27 billion per year (http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/07/OCI_US_FF_Subsidies_Final_Screen.pdf ), and more for transporting the fuel. Much more, of course, if you count the cost of providing security in the Middle East, which many people think we only do because of the oil. https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
Maybe the massively regressive impacts of the increased cost of energy under Obama will be reversed and lower- and middle-class people will benefit...
Uh, there was no " increased cost of energy under Obama". During the Obama administration, the cost of fossil fuels dropped from the levels during the Bush administration.
Even for electrical energy, the price increased only at the rate of inflation. In constant dollars, the cost remained constant. (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.03.16/realnominal.png )
Basically every carbon atom that goes into your tank comes out the tailpipe as soot, CO2, and a very smalll quantity (these days) of unburned alkanes. Since that means that the CO2 emitted per unit consumed by the engine is approximately constant...
No, it's not constant. Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon emitted per unit energy (not per unit carbon). If you're burning hydrogen, your carbon intensity is zero. If you're burning anthracite, your carbon intensity is 104. If you're burning natural gas, your carbon intensity is halfway in between.
Carbon intensity is a measure of what's in your fuel. Basically, it tells you how much carbon was in the fuel producing your energy.
The reference is seen by clicking the link in Ars Technica article linked in the summary, here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
(as you point out, carbon produced in the supply chain should also, logically, be included).
Carbon intensity is not efficiency, which is what you seem to be interested in.
Carbon intensity is, instead, a measure of where the energy comes from: not how efficiently it is used; but, how much of the energy comes from oxidizing carbon instead of from some other source.
If you divide carbon intensity (carbon per million BTUs of energy) by the efficiency (amount of produce product per million BTUs of energy) you would get a measure of the carbon emitted per unit of product. So the carbon intensity is one factor in the greenhouse emissions, but not the only factor. It's the factor that accounts for the fuel type.
... and, no, don't blame me for the silly units of kilograms of carbon per million BTUs; I didn't invent them.
Basically, the WGA is a union. They work to prevent the studios from shafting the writers, which is something that the studios are notorious for doing. (the old saw used to be that (for some studios) payment was "on receipt of lawsuit.")
I'd say that the most important element of a television show or a movie is the writing-- if it's badly written and doesn't make any sense, it hardly matters whether the acting and cinematography are good or bad. But your mileage may vary.
Mostly, men are expected to keep their boring jobs even after they have their first kid. In fact, especially after they have their first kid.
And, make no mistake: most jobs are boring. Having a kid just gives you a good excuse to leave a job that you'd rather leave anyway.
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-coal-hobet/
Ever hear of those things called the Rocky Mountains?
I appreciate your condescending, smug response.
This is slashdot. If it were reddit, the response would be condescending and smug, but also profane and insulting.
I liked it so much I poked around and found that Kinder Morgan built a pipeline across the Canadian rockies in the 50s and expanded it in 2004. It can transport 300k barrels a day and there are proposals to triple it. For comparison, Keystone is ~500k barrels/day.
Just because somebody can do something doesn't mean that if there is a more efficient way to do it, you wouldn't prefer to do it that way. If a shorter route crossing the Rockies had actually been a more efficient way to transport oil than a longer pipeline not crossing the mountains, you would expect that other companies would have emulated this pipeline. But they didn't.
So you're completely totally wrong. Put that in your pipe and send it over the rockies!
+1 funny from me for the double-entendre metaphor.
I'm no expert, but wouldn't it be cheaper to pipe the oil to vancouver or somewhere and ship it from there?
Ever hear of those things called the Rocky Mountains?
Roughly, you'd rather pipe oil downhill than uphill. So, whichever direction the watershed flows, that's the direction you want to send your oil.
If it were easier to flow to Vancouver than to the gulf, the Mississippi river would flow west.
The jobs aren't coming back. If coal production increases, the jobs that come back are going to Wyoming, not Kentucky, because the coal mining there uses fewer people and thus costs less.
"Uses fewer people and thus costs less" means "the jobs move there, but there aren't going to be very many of them."
Look at this one for data: Complex Market Forces Are Challenging Appalachian Coal Mining: https://www.americanprogress.o...
Most of us don't have that option - our companies are not going to keep us on until we die. We'll get downsized, outsourced, etc. at least once or twice and then not hired on anyplace else because of rampant age discrimination. After all, with more available workforce every year,
Demographics say otherwise. The demographic data, in this case, are helping you (assuming you want to stay employed...)
The reason for age discrimination is that employers can. That's because the baby boom generation means that there are an excess of population; you can afford to not hire the older ones, 'cause there's plenty of people looking for jobs. But the baby boom was last millennium.
it isn't like there are going to be enough jobs to go around.
That demographic bulge is over-- by the time millennials are ready to retire, there won't be that big bulge of population. We'll be in the population decline segment of the demographics. Too few people, not too many.
See my other post in this thread about the General Welfare clause. You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states, and the ability of the Feds to lay taxation for that purpose.
No, it doesn't.
Where the hell do you get these bullshit interpretations?
The meaning of the "welfare" in 1787 meant health and prosperity. Of the people. You know, that "we the people" thing? People.
I've always thought the same.
1) I won't live past 65 so who cares.
You don't say how old you are now, but if you're age 40, your life expectancy is another 40 years, so you have 15 years unaccounted for. On the average
Graph of (remaining) life expectancy: http://www.roperld.com/science...
The commenters here aren't to be blamed. Blame msmash and the other Slashdot editors for putting these shitty submissions on the front page multiple times every day.... So when a quarter of each day's front page submissions are about "climate change" in some way, then of course climate change is what we'll be stuck discussing.
I counted the headlines before this one, and out of the 50 posts in the last two days, exactly one ("China To Boost Non-Fossil Fuel Use To 20 Percent By 2030 (reuters.com)") was related to climate. Another one, ("The EPA Won't Be Shutting Down Its Open Data Website After All (mashable.com)") could be considered slightly somewhat peripherally related.
So, that's--at most--two out of fifty: four percent. Your claim "a quarter of each day's front page submissions are about "climate change"" is bullshit.
To the extent that America is involved, it is mainly a device to reduce American exports of oil, by replacing American exports with cheaper Canadian exports.
Sarcasm aside, that is exactly why coal jobs are not coming back. Coal production is in fact very close to an all-time high in the United States-- we're mining about 900 million tons a year, more coal now than we did in 1990 (or any year before then).
But we're doing it with machinery now, not with coal miners. Even if coal production increases, the jobs ain't coming back.
Graph: http://www.insidenergy.com/wp-...