No, it means as I come across a specific fool's pseudonym, I can quickly decide whether I want to spend my time reading what he/she said. When its 800 anonymous cowards posts, and the quality of what they say is random, then I'm inclined not to be bothered to read any of them. People who don't take responsibility for their statements or actions are valueless. There's too many of them on Slashdot to make Slashdot worth my time reading.
The luxury of the modding system on here, the trolls typically will end up modded down regardless of if they are AC or not.
Except that's not how the system really works here. Slashdot's moderation system barely functions. When its buried under 5000 responses, no one is going to read or moderate it at all. I almost never moderate down an AC troll, because there's too many of them, so I'd rather use the points to moderate up something someone said that was of value. But its rare to find well thought out opinions or information, and at the deadline, I'm just slinging mod points arbitrarily through over a hundred posts I bother to read. Frankly, I just go through the first sentence of an AC post. If I'm not intrigued, I just ignore anything afterwards. The problem is there's too many useless posts of opinions. Its not opinions I value; its facts, reasoned arguments, and useful testimonials. What little signal of value is getting drowned out by noise.
It doesn't change the fact that glowing testimonials from anonymous cowards are pointless. (Just like 4 out of 5 dentists agree...)
Life is risk. If you're too concerned of the possibility civilization will become a computerized panopticon to speak out against issues you find egregious, then you're pointless background noise, and you've already capitulated to The Powers That Be.
The OP wasn't providing information; he was providing opinion. Its pointless doing so as an "anonymous coward". At least as a pseudonym, you're choosing to cultivate the reputation of the pseudonym. It then becomes worth the effort to respond to what such a person says. Letting ACs troll, or even letting anonymous cowards voice their opinion they're too cowardly to associate to a pseudonym is just wasting everyone's time here.
The one good thing is that increasing warming makes solar cheaper and cheaper.
What is the basis for that (ridiculous) statement? The increased warming isn't coming from an increase in solar radiation. You can argue that "global warming" makes solar a more attractive power source, even if "marginally" more expensive to produce than fossil fuels. But "climate change" is not going make solar "cheaper and cheaper".
> Radioactive waste does not cause any health problems whatsoever if it is stored properly
Based on a history of developed countries experience that probably has only 2 decades worth of relevant data for material that can take 1000 years to decay to a low health risk.
While I am a proponent of nuclear power (even if it requires subsidization on the national level), I would not be a proponent for it based on the current state of technology (designed in the 1960's). Nuclear waste management is an indispensable requirement, and most nations do not have a remotely credible one. Also, future nuclear reactors need to be based on technologies like thorium, and "meltdown proof", both which are in technological reach.
Students of for-profit boutique colleges are shocked to find out that their diploma isn't worth shit, either in the real world, or in their depressed local economy.
And why would I hire a guy with a master's degree that's never developed code for a real company? Employers don't hire you because you have an expensive piece of paper, and schools that issue masters degrees in computer science don't train you to produce efficient, effective code in a short period of time.
At very least, the nephew fucked up by not having a slew of productive internships during the summer break.
The problem is that the government is mandating and subsidizing this stuff (as you wrote.) Hard to call that much government control over production/distribution "a capitalist economic system."
If you can point out any other nation on earth that operates on a "true" laisse-faire capitalist standard, then I'll readily concede Californie and the United States economic system is not capitalist. Just as most USSR detractors conceded that Soviet communism did not truly practice communism./s
Well, at least you recognize that Communism is a form of economic system. I had only meant my Capitalist comment in a sardonic manner.
The key one is that even a completely communistic system NEEDS to have the information that is provided from purchases and sales.
Whether or not that is actually true, its probably true for all economic systems subject to regulation. I'm not seeing laisse-faire capitalism, complete with "natural" monopolies, as being a solution to California's unique solar power production "problem".
While California does experience retardation on the gov't level (as all gov'ts do), and "excess" solar capacity requires addressing, its not as simple a problem as you think it is to resolve.
The problem is that California exists in a capitalist economic system. Electricity providers obtain contracts to generate X amount of power (and other contractual conditions) for a length of time, and gets paid Y. California mandates solar power subsidization, in that solar power generators that put their excess power to the grid get paid for it.
The problem is that there is no way to "store" excess solar power in the grid, and solar power can only be generated during daytime. This means during the day, a shiteload of excess power is generated, with no one in California that wants to consume it. Without a magical storage battery, this could be addressed by traditional power vendors producing less power by day, and more power at night. But then who shuts down their power plant, for how long? And how do they amortize their investment in their fossil fuel power plant?
California gov't will eventually need to renegotiate more flexible production schedules with power producers, without directly screwing over producers that have already built new power plants. (And then CA probably will have further meddling from the FERC.) The cost of paying Arizona to take their excess electricity may be cheaper than addressing the problem differently.
And you seem to be completely unaware what hardware flaws have been historically found in CPUs. As I said to the other clueless response
Clueless? You're the one who equates this hypertheading bug to some other bug that may crop up once in a billion operations, and doesn't even effect the computed result.
As I said to the other clueless response, go please go away and play with LEGO or something.
I only got one response from you today. Now I know who likes using anonymous coward accounts to make personal attacks. Which I should forward to the mods, even though its unlikely they'll care.
Did it occur to you that if a hacker is able to modify the IME system, that he can direct the packets to use port numbers other than 16992-16995? 443 would be my goto port.
> The difference is that Ryzen is a new architecture, where this is sort-of expected.
No. In the sense that this is a hardware issue, not a software issue. Hyperthread issues are not expected because the hardware is "new". Software "engineering" is a joke compared to the rigor required in hardware development. I know you may not understand this, but (successfully employed) engineers of hardware are not allowed to fuck up. Manufacturing companies spend 1000x more in design, expertise, and quality control to make sure hardware doesn't have any flaw. Because if hardware does have a flaw, its hardware -- it can't be fixed with a software patch.
> Intel has this in an old architecture and that is just not acceptable.
With a "new" architecture, it cannot fall back on years of previous versions of hardware to expose a bug. That does not mean Intel would be immune to subtle forms of design flaws, since every new version of chip means having done something new on the microcode level. Otherwise, it would be meaningless to be adding tens of thousands more transistors to do the job exactly as the previous version of chip.
It is blowing my mind right now how so many gaming enthusiasts and other amateur computer users fail to grasp the gravity of this hardware flaw. Yes, a change can be made in the CPU's microcode to avoid the flaw, but its not like Intel microcode can be rewritten from scratch. A patch on the BIOS level only means that hyperthreading is disabled. That means the extra hundreds of dollars spent to make your PC 10-30% faster than an i5 has been pissed away; your i7 just lost its performance edge to an i5. If something is actually modified on the i7's microcode, its more about kludging the intended hyperthread operation to avoid the logic bug (which means your i7 loses performance).
Fortunately, a program crashing or generating incorrect data is pretty meaningless to gamers and websurfers. But if I was an investment bank, bitcoiner, scientist, or engineering company dependent on computed output, I'd be extremely pissed off. It makes me wonder if Intel is going to have to do a product recall (or perhaps an extremely limited rebate to select industry customers). AMD really should figure out a smart way to capitalize on Intel's foobar.
... aren't students shelling out thousands of dollars in (science) education to be taught conventionally accepted knowledge by an expert in the scientific discipline's field? What would the bill accomplish besides having unqualified nincompoops devaluing the quality of education? There is a standard of conventional knowledge and research competence demonstrated by every PhD. Undergrads and outsiders have no business contesting facts in the science curriculum. Any legislator that votes for such a bill should be impeached. You may as well shutdown the university at that point; it will cease to be a credible, accredited undergraduate facility.
I read it as a teenager and came away with two impressions
1) I ceased thinking I was being constructive with my time by reading 1000+ paged books.
2) Anything derivative of Ayn Rand indicated severe deficits in thinking (e.g. Libertarianism). Anyone who admired Rand's philosophy have serious personality defects.
By reading that monstrosity, at least I was able to get a chuckle out of it when RAW lampooned it in his Illuminatus Trilogy.
I not a big fan of leakers, unless like Snowden they can go a long way to demonstrating they tried very hard to work within the system first.
And just as important, leak something that's going to stay secret, like corruption, or US agencies violating the law. The whole point of Snowden's data dump was to reveal that the NSA was illegally collecting information on Americans, for policy rationales they did not have a legal right to institute.
The NSA was not going to keep secret that the Russians tried to hack American vote gathering machines. She bought herself a 15 year prison sentence for revealing nothing. I'm still trying to figure out whether the reporter should be castigated for enabling their naive source to destroy their life just to get a byline that was going to be printed shortly before Trump gets impeached.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it means as I come across a specific fool's pseudonym, I can quickly decide whether I want to spend my time reading what he/she said. When its 800 anonymous cowards posts, and the quality of what they say is random, then I'm inclined not to be bothered to read any of them. People who don't take responsibility for their statements or actions are valueless. There's too many of them on Slashdot to make Slashdot worth my time reading.
The luxury of the modding system on here, the trolls typically will end up modded down regardless of if they are AC or not.
Except that's not how the system really works here. Slashdot's moderation system barely functions. When its buried under 5000 responses, no one is going to read or moderate it at all. I almost never moderate down an AC troll, because there's too many of them, so I'd rather use the points to moderate up something someone said that was of value. But its rare to find well thought out opinions or information, and at the deadline, I'm just slinging mod points arbitrarily through over a hundred posts I bother to read. Frankly, I just go through the first sentence of an AC post. If I'm not intrigued, I just ignore anything afterwards. The problem is there's too many useless posts of opinions. Its not opinions I value; its facts, reasoned arguments, and useful testimonials. What little signal of value is getting drowned out by noise.
It doesn't change the fact that glowing testimonials from anonymous cowards are pointless. (Just like 4 out of 5 dentists agree...)
Life is risk. If you're too concerned of the possibility civilization will become a computerized panopticon to speak out against issues you find egregious, then you're pointless background noise, and you've already capitulated to The Powers That Be.
The OP wasn't providing information; he was providing opinion. Its pointless doing so as an "anonymous coward". At least as a pseudonym, you're choosing to cultivate the reputation of the pseudonym. It then becomes worth the effort to respond to what such a person says. Letting ACs troll, or even letting anonymous cowards voice their opinion they're too cowardly to associate to a pseudonym is just wasting everyone's time here.
I'm a UAW member. In my experience, they are responsive, helpful, and quite valuable. [...] I don't get the hate here.
If you genuinely believed in what you say, you wouldn't be using an anonymous coward account.
What he doesn't have the right to do is demand that people waste away their lives for him.
No, he doesn't, and no, he has no power to do so. This is America; people can quit working for Tesla at any time.
Excellent point. I wish I had a mod point to give you.
The one good thing is that increasing warming makes solar cheaper and cheaper.
What is the basis for that (ridiculous) statement? The increased warming isn't coming from an increase in solar radiation. You can argue that "global warming" makes solar a more attractive power source, even if "marginally" more expensive to produce than fossil fuels. But "climate change" is not going make solar "cheaper and cheaper".
> Radioactive waste does not cause any health problems whatsoever if it is stored properly
Based on a history of developed countries experience that probably has only 2 decades worth of relevant data for material that can take 1000 years to decay to a low health risk.
While I am a proponent of nuclear power (even if it requires subsidization on the national level), I would not be a proponent for it based on the current state of technology (designed in the 1960's). Nuclear waste management is an indispensable requirement, and most nations do not have a remotely credible one. Also, future nuclear reactors need to be based on technologies like thorium, and "meltdown proof", both which are in technological reach.
A country that only valued its ability to defend itself is the former Soviet Union. There was never an attack, and yet that nation no longer exists.
What is the US defending itself against? The world? Because it spends more than most of the world combined on its military.
Students of for-profit boutique colleges are shocked to find out that their diploma isn't worth shit, either in the real world, or in their depressed local economy.
And why would I hire a guy with a master's degree that's never developed code for a real company? Employers don't hire you because you have an expensive piece of paper, and schools that issue masters degrees in computer science don't train you to produce efficient, effective code in a short period of time.
At very least, the nephew fucked up by not having a slew of productive internships during the summer break.
California can't even maintain their dams.
The problem is that the government is mandating and subsidizing this stuff (as you wrote.) Hard to call that much government control over production/distribution "a capitalist economic system."
If you can point out any other nation on earth that operates on a "true" laisse-faire capitalist standard, then I'll readily concede Californie and the United States economic system is not capitalist. Just as most USSR detractors conceded that Soviet communism did not truly practice communism. /s
Well, at least you recognize that Communism is a form of economic system. I had only meant my Capitalist comment in a sardonic manner.
The key one is that even a completely communistic system NEEDS to have the information that is provided from purchases and sales.
Whether or not that is actually true, its probably true for all economic systems subject to regulation. I'm not seeing laisse-faire capitalism, complete with "natural" monopolies, as being a solution to California's unique solar power production "problem".
While California does experience retardation on the gov't level (as all gov'ts do), and "excess" solar capacity requires addressing, its not as simple a problem as you think it is to resolve.
The problem is that California exists in a capitalist economic system. Electricity providers obtain contracts to generate X amount of power (and other contractual conditions) for a length of time, and gets paid Y. California mandates solar power subsidization, in that solar power generators that put their excess power to the grid get paid for it.
The problem is that there is no way to "store" excess solar power in the grid, and solar power can only be generated during daytime. This means during the day, a shiteload of excess power is generated, with no one in California that wants to consume it. Without a magical storage battery, this could be addressed by traditional power vendors producing less power by day, and more power at night. But then who shuts down their power plant, for how long? And how do they amortize their investment in their fossil fuel power plant?
California gov't will eventually need to renegotiate more flexible production schedules with power producers, without directly screwing over producers that have already built new power plants. (And then CA probably will have further meddling from the FERC.) The cost of paying Arizona to take their excess electricity may be cheaper than addressing the problem differently.
And you seem to be completely unaware what hardware flaws have been historically found in CPUs. As I said to the other clueless response
Clueless? You're the one who equates this hypertheading bug to some other bug that may crop up once in a billion operations, and doesn't even effect the computed result.
As I said to the other clueless response, go please go away and play with LEGO or something.
I only got one response from you today. Now I know who likes using anonymous coward accounts to make personal attacks. Which I should forward to the mods, even though its unlikely they'll care.
I only allow 80, 8080 & 443 in/out here
Awww, how cute.
Did it occur to you that if a hacker is able to modify the IME system, that he can direct the packets to use port numbers other than 16992-16995? 443 would be my goto port.
> The difference is that Ryzen is a new architecture, where this is sort-of expected.
No. In the sense that this is a hardware issue, not a software issue. Hyperthread issues are not expected because the hardware is "new". Software "engineering" is a joke compared to the rigor required in hardware development. I know you may not understand this, but (successfully employed) engineers of hardware are not allowed to fuck up. Manufacturing companies spend 1000x more in design, expertise, and quality control to make sure hardware doesn't have any flaw. Because if hardware does have a flaw, its hardware -- it can't be fixed with a software patch.
> Intel has this in an old architecture and that is just not acceptable.
With a "new" architecture, it cannot fall back on years of previous versions of hardware to expose a bug. That does not mean Intel would be immune to subtle forms of design flaws, since every new version of chip means having done something new on the microcode level. Otherwise, it would be meaningless to be adding tens of thousands more transistors to do the job exactly as the previous version of chip.
It is blowing my mind right now how so many gaming enthusiasts and other amateur computer users fail to grasp the gravity of this hardware flaw. Yes, a change can be made in the CPU's microcode to avoid the flaw, but its not like Intel microcode can be rewritten from scratch. A patch on the BIOS level only means that hyperthreading is disabled. That means the extra hundreds of dollars spent to make your PC 10-30% faster than an i5 has been pissed away; your i7 just lost its performance edge to an i5. If something is actually modified on the i7's microcode, its more about kludging the intended hyperthread operation to avoid the logic bug (which means your i7 loses performance).
Fortunately, a program crashing or generating incorrect data is pretty meaningless to gamers and websurfers. But if I was an investment bank, bitcoiner, scientist, or engineering company dependent on computed output, I'd be extremely pissed off. It makes me wonder if Intel is going to have to do a product recall (or perhaps an extremely limited rebate to select industry customers). AMD really should figure out a smart way to capitalize on Intel's foobar.
With 65GB free, you can put a version of wikipedia on it.
Just don't be too fat to fly.
... aren't students shelling out thousands of dollars in (science) education to be taught conventionally accepted knowledge by an expert in the scientific discipline's field? What would the bill accomplish besides having unqualified nincompoops devaluing the quality of education? There is a standard of conventional knowledge and research competence demonstrated by every PhD. Undergrads and outsiders have no business contesting facts in the science curriculum. Any legislator that votes for such a bill should be impeached. You may as well shutdown the university at that point; it will cease to be a credible, accredited undergraduate facility.
It was an awesome read, anyway.
Geez, what backward hell hole did you come from? It was required reading in 8th grade, and I had already knocked that book off two years before then.
I read it as a teenager and came away with two impressions
1) I ceased thinking I was being constructive with my time by reading 1000+ paged books.
2) Anything derivative of Ayn Rand indicated severe deficits in thinking (e.g. Libertarianism). Anyone who admired Rand's philosophy have serious personality defects.
By reading that monstrosity, at least I was able to get a chuckle out of it when RAW lampooned it in his Illuminatus Trilogy.
Damn, there was no reason to go anonymous for that bon mot.
I not a big fan of leakers, unless like Snowden they can go a long way to demonstrating they tried very hard to work within the system first.
And just as important, leak something that's going to stay secret, like corruption, or US agencies violating the law. The whole point of Snowden's data dump was to reveal that the NSA was illegally collecting information on Americans, for policy rationales they did not have a legal right to institute.
The NSA was not going to keep secret that the Russians tried to hack American vote gathering machines. She bought herself a 15 year prison sentence for revealing nothing. I'm still trying to figure out whether the reporter should be castigated for enabling their naive source to destroy their life just to get a byline that was going to be printed shortly before Trump gets impeached.