it could leave a repeater at the top of the shaft before it starts boring in. It sends a low power signal to that, which then boosts it with a high-gain directional which stays pointed at Earth, or even a satellite with another repeater.
Yes, that's all very heavy, but so is 300km of cable
I have nothing against engineers and scientists, but the factors that you mention are equal between technology and designs we already have, and technology and designs that don't even exist yet.
It still takes time to build energy storage facilities that we don't have technology for yet, too. What background gives you the delusion that we can instantly build utility scale designs of things that we haven't even done successfully in a lab faster than something that several companies already have designed and proven at scale?
Why do people persist in chasing a utopian dream that doesn't exist yet, when we have better solutions we could be working on today, in order to lessen impact today? Should we go right on spewing shit into the air because we don't have a perfect solution? Is that what you are really advocating?
There's an important variable that you're forgetting: time to implement.
We have nuclear generation technology now, and decades of operation experience. The energy storage technology you're talking about doesn't exist or barely exists, and has not been proven in nearly the exhaustive manner as nuclear.
We can use nuclear as a bridge to get away from coal *today*, and then as the technology for a larger share of renewables to take over matures, we can get there eventually. The idea of not going with what we know is better today in favor of what may be better at some point is ludicrous, because while you're waiting for that to come, you're still spewing amazingly toxic crap into the air killing 50k+ people per year in the US alone.
Because you don't go directly from the Wright Brothers to the Space Shuttle in one step. There are intermediary steps involved, because that's how technology progresses.
Waiting for the perfect technology instead of using incrementally improved solutions has you getting nowhere at all.
All this is irrelevant. Uranium, is limited in supply, even if it's a large supply. This limit means we will eventually have to stop using it and use something else. So why bother starting?
Really? You're saying that because there's only a couple thousand years of our current energy needs sitting there, we shouldn't use it at all because it's only a couple thousand years? It's better to continue burning chunks of mountain and turning them into clouds of shit that kills people because we don't have a permanent lasts-longer-than-civilization-has-been-here energy source?
You are fucking cracked. Turn off your computer and never use it again - it's powered by a temporary energy source that we will eventually have to stop using. And it too, will not last forever - you're going to need a new one of those someday so just don't use it, because no good can come from using something that is only temporary, but way better than what came before.
I'd imagine the reason that nuclear wasn't mentioned in the linked article, is because there is a 0% rise in nuclear generation capacity, and thus doesn't show up as a data point.
In fact, except for NRC-licensed uprating of existing reactors, there hasn't been any increase in nuclear generation capacity in the US in over 30 years. If they complete that plant in Georgia, then we'll probably see it in the future versions of this article.
This is an incredibly logical stance, and one that I find myself drawn to. I don't know if climate change is being caused by human industrialization or not - I haven't seen all the data, and I'm not a climatologist with the proper training to interpret that data.
I do know that turning chunks of carbon found under a mountain into plumes of shit in the atmosphere isn't very good for the lungs that happen to be downwind. The science is pretty clear on that. Therefore, if we can find ways to stop doing that without sacrificing societal progress, I'm all for it. Thus, I work for a solar energy company, and have no problem with them trumpeting the environmental good that the 4GWh we produced yesterday is doing.
It's that many lumps of mountain that aren't turned into shit in the air people have to breathe.
Democrats are contorting themselves into previously unseen shapes in order to work that into anything they can when they have a microphone in front of them. And they should be, because at the very least it's a completely irresponsible action on the part of 47 asshat senators. Never mind that administrative agreements make up over 80% of diplomatic agreements and pacts, and have jack shit to do with the Senate. Never mind that it was an isolationist Republican that hated FDR's breathing guts that first coined the phrase "politics stops at the waters edge" in a floor speech in the United States Senate shortly before the full-on outbreak of World War II. It's unprecedented in the entire history of the Senate, and more than that, it's just factually incorrect about anything except for a formal treaty.
I think it's just being drowned out right now by this email garbage, because Hillary. But I don't think it's going away.
reduced over heat: two wrongs make a right all of a sudden when my tribe committed the second wrong, but I'm still going to piss and moan about the first wrong!
Yes, it would be detected, but it could not be corrected. It would likely crash the software with a memory fault, in which case you would have a denial of service attack rather than defeating protected memory and allowing something access from outside the box.
Not good, but better than complete privilege escalation.
ECC is able to correct one error, but find more than one. If by some strange probability you were able to shift 2+ bits in the same 64-bit chunk of DRAM, ECC would detect it, but just mark it as errored rather than accept what the value is.
It would more likely be a denial-of-service attack rather than being able to manipulate values. The fact that Google's "Zero Labs" guys couldn't make it happen on ECC systems speaks to the probabilities though - ECC may be enough of a protection until the problem gets solved in the next generation of DRAM.
I see - you were looking at the PDF link, which is more theoretical. yes, if you can get two or more bits to shift inside a 64-bit chunk, then ECC doesn't help. There's got to be a low probability of that actually happening though - the Google Project Zero wasn't able to make it happen with ECC at all.
We also tested some desktop machines, but did not see any bit flips on those. That could be because they were all relatively high-end machines with ECC memory. The ECC could be hiding bit flips.
I don't know a whole lot about luxury watches, so forgive the mistake about the battery. I know there are "automatic" watches as well as ones that you still use the crown to wind, but was unaware that was what the super high end was about.
Also, I'm sure that having it cleaned every 5 years is still orders of magnitude cheaper than COMPLETELY REPLACING IT EVERY TWO.
So the original argument is "OMG the iPhone 7 sucks, I'm screwed because I bought an Apple Watch!" to which I argue that if the iPhone 7 sucks, just keep using the 6 or 6+ you've already got.
You then extrapolate out that every iPhone ever after is also going to suck? Is there any evidence AT ALL to warrant that? And by the way, once a decision to stay with a particular phone has been reached, it clearly is set in concrete and can never be re-decided, can it?
There are some fashions that go for generations. Pocket watches died out when the wrist watch became a thing, but the wrist watch has been here for decades, with decades to come. It's only a very recent thing (millenials) that people actually think that having an accurate timepiece that isn't also for making phone calls is "silly".
Yeah, except that if I buy a Breitling, with a battery change and lack of abuse it will still work exactly as good in 30 years as it does today. Can we say the same about ANY "smart" watch?
The device is only useful until the software updates stop, and the devices it talks to continue to support it. Anyone who buys a $10k+ generation-1 Apple Watch is a god damn fool. And I say that as someone who usually enjoys Apple stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
it could leave a repeater at the top of the shaft before it starts boring in. It sends a low power signal to that, which then boosts it with a high-gain directional which stays pointed at Earth, or even a satellite with another repeater.
Yes, that's all very heavy, but so is 300km of cable
I have nothing against engineers and scientists, but the factors that you mention are equal between technology and designs we already have, and technology and designs that don't even exist yet.
It still takes time to build energy storage facilities that we don't have technology for yet, too. What background gives you the delusion that we can instantly build utility scale designs of things that we haven't even done successfully in a lab faster than something that several companies already have designed and proven at scale?
Why do people persist in chasing a utopian dream that doesn't exist yet, when we have better solutions we could be working on today, in order to lessen impact today? Should we go right on spewing shit into the air because we don't have a perfect solution? Is that what you are really advocating?
There's an important variable that you're forgetting: time to implement.
We have nuclear generation technology now, and decades of operation experience. The energy storage technology you're talking about doesn't exist or barely exists, and has not been proven in nearly the exhaustive manner as nuclear.
We can use nuclear as a bridge to get away from coal *today*, and then as the technology for a larger share of renewables to take over matures, we can get there eventually. The idea of not going with what we know is better today in favor of what may be better at some point is ludicrous, because while you're waiting for that to come, you're still spewing amazingly toxic crap into the air killing 50k+ people per year in the US alone.
Why invest in short term solutions?
Because you don't go directly from the Wright Brothers to the Space Shuttle in one step. There are intermediary steps involved, because that's how technology progresses.
Waiting for the perfect technology instead of using incrementally improved solutions has you getting nowhere at all.
All this is irrelevant. Uranium, is limited in supply, even if it's a large supply. This limit means we will eventually have to stop using it and use something else. So why bother starting?
Really? You're saying that because there's only a couple thousand years of our current energy needs sitting there, we shouldn't use it at all because it's only a couple thousand years? It's better to continue burning chunks of mountain and turning them into clouds of shit that kills people because we don't have a permanent lasts-longer-than-civilization-has-been-here energy source?
You are fucking cracked. Turn off your computer and never use it again - it's powered by a temporary energy source that we will eventually have to stop using. And it too, will not last forever - you're going to need a new one of those someday so just don't use it, because no good can come from using something that is only temporary, but way better than what came before.
I'd imagine the reason that nuclear wasn't mentioned in the linked article, is because there is a 0% rise in nuclear generation capacity, and thus doesn't show up as a data point.
In fact, except for NRC-licensed uprating of existing reactors, there hasn't been any increase in nuclear generation capacity in the US in over 30 years. If they complete that plant in Georgia, then we'll probably see it in the future versions of this article.
This is an incredibly logical stance, and one that I find myself drawn to. I don't know if climate change is being caused by human industrialization or not - I haven't seen all the data, and I'm not a climatologist with the proper training to interpret that data.
I do know that turning chunks of carbon found under a mountain into plumes of shit in the atmosphere isn't very good for the lungs that happen to be downwind. The science is pretty clear on that. Therefore, if we can find ways to stop doing that without sacrificing societal progress, I'm all for it. Thus, I work for a solar energy company, and have no problem with them trumpeting the environmental good that the 4GWh we produced yesterday is doing.
It's that many lumps of mountain that aren't turned into shit in the air people have to breathe.
It's not even all of that one political party. Just a vocal section of it.
It's pretty sad when CHINA can agree on this, but the radical right wing cannot.
At least it's different from "Blame Bush."
What opposition research could possibly be done on Walker that wasn't done during the recall campaign, or his campaign to re-elect?
Really? You think that's just going to go away?
Democrats are contorting themselves into previously unseen shapes in order to work that into anything they can when they have a microphone in front of them. And they should be, because at the very least it's a completely irresponsible action on the part of 47 asshat senators. Never mind that administrative agreements make up over 80% of diplomatic agreements and pacts, and have jack shit to do with the Senate. Never mind that it was an isolationist Republican that hated FDR's breathing guts that first coined the phrase "politics stops at the waters edge" in a floor speech in the United States Senate shortly before the full-on outbreak of World War II. It's unprecedented in the entire history of the Senate, and more than that, it's just factually incorrect about anything except for a formal treaty.
I think it's just being drowned out right now by this email garbage, because Hillary. But I don't think it's going away.
... unless they use the web browser and one of the hundreds of web email services that have existed for over a decade.
reduced over heat: two wrongs make a right all of a sudden when my tribe committed the second wrong, but I'm still going to piss and moan about the first wrong!
Yes, it would be detected, but it could not be corrected. It would likely crash the software with a memory fault, in which case you would have a denial of service attack rather than defeating protected memory and allowing something access from outside the box.
Not good, but better than complete privilege escalation.
ECC is able to correct one error, but find more than one. If by some strange probability you were able to shift 2+ bits in the same 64-bit chunk of DRAM, ECC would detect it, but just mark it as errored rather than accept what the value is.
It would more likely be a denial-of-service attack rather than being able to manipulate values. The fact that Google's "Zero Labs" guys couldn't make it happen on ECC systems speaks to the probabilities though - ECC may be enough of a protection until the problem gets solved in the next generation of DRAM.
I see - you were looking at the PDF link, which is more theoretical. yes, if you can get two or more bits to shift inside a 64-bit chunk, then ECC doesn't help. There's got to be a low probability of that actually happening though - the Google Project Zero wasn't able to make it happen with ECC at all.
so when they said:
We also tested some desktop machines, but did not see any bit flips on those. That could be because they were all relatively high-end machines with ECC memory. The ECC could be hiding bit flips.
they actually said that ECC doesn't matter?
I guess we read differently.
I don't know a whole lot about luxury watches, so forgive the mistake about the battery. I know there are "automatic" watches as well as ones that you still use the crown to wind, but was unaware that was what the super high end was about.
Also, I'm sure that having it cleaned every 5 years is still orders of magnitude cheaper than COMPLETELY REPLACING IT EVERY TWO.
So the original argument is "OMG the iPhone 7 sucks, I'm screwed because I bought an Apple Watch!" to which I argue that if the iPhone 7 sucks, just keep using the 6 or 6+ you've already got.
You then extrapolate out that every iPhone ever after is also going to suck? Is there any evidence AT ALL to warrant that? And by the way, once a decision to stay with a particular phone has been reached, it clearly is set in concrete and can never be re-decided, can it?
Shitty fads come and go, yes.
There are some fashions that go for generations. Pocket watches died out when the wrist watch became a thing, but the wrist watch has been here for decades, with decades to come. It's only a very recent thing (millenials) that people actually think that having an accurate timepiece that isn't also for making phone calls is "silly".
These smart watches are primarily aimed at them.
Well, there's always the option to just keep the phone you already have.
How does that not occur to people? If you like what you have, KEEP USING IT.
Well, if it's an automatic watch, you either need to wear it, or keep it in a winding box...
Yeah, except that if I buy a Breitling, with a battery change and lack of abuse it will still work exactly as good in 30 years as it does today. Can we say the same about ANY "smart" watch?
The device is only useful until the software updates stop, and the devices it talks to continue to support it. Anyone who buys a $10k+ generation-1 Apple Watch is a god damn fool. And I say that as someone who usually enjoys Apple stuff.
Intel hasn't shipped the processor that Apple wants for the 15" yet. Wait for WWDC, likely.
Yeah, it's almost like they deleted the word "Pro" from the name of the product when they reduced the number of things that Pros care about!