This "install your own root CA" trick is being used widely in corporate environments to allow proxies to snoop your HTTPS connections ; caused no end of trouble with clients using independent Firefox installs (Chrome uses the system certificate store, Firefox has it's own) navigating to our pages (with properly signed certificates) and being told they were a security risk.
We also had something that directed traffic while we were out of the corporate network through a third-party proxy that used the same trick (Websense).
There are commercial drivers for battery and renewable research though - there are existing industries that will benefit, and clear advantages. Batteries and renewables are technologies in use NOW and the commercial sector excels at improving existing tech.
What it sucks at is basic research. We need more money for fusion, not less, and spread across multiple projects. Really, I wish they'd declare war on the energy crisis and have a Manhattan Project for fusion, alas, there's a more obvious target, and that's annexing what remaining fossil fuel reserves we have, and the money will probably be poured into that instead. $2T dollars for the Iraq war : total all time USA fusion research funding, adjusted for inflation, less than $30B.
But the pulsed methods all face commercialization challenges on achieving rapid firing rates
You're not joking. You'd need 10 shots a second ; I liken it to developing the worlds most accurate and reliable machine gun, firing the worlds most expensive cryogenically cooled ammunition (while gold-plated uranium bullets are pretty expensive, the real kicker is the tritium, $30,000 a gram), into the heart of a machine that somehow combines a laser array several orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else we've ever developed AND the heat exchangers required to get the energy out somehow without anything getting in the way of the other stuff. NIF is a weapons research programme : the "energy" agenda is just a way to get it some extra support.
Yes, Lerner is a bit kooky. Kekule dreamed of snakes biting each others tails and discovered the molecular structure of benzene. If a working fusion reactor design comes from a weird and controversial idea about the origin of the universe, I'm fine with that. I hold out as much hope for the focus fusor as I do for ITER - ie, not a lot, but there is something there ; they get neutrons, and the size of their device means they can strip it down and refine it every few months, whereas ITER does not live up to it's name - a single prototype that takes 15 years is not "ITERative". At the very least they are learning stuff about plasma physics and doing it on a relative shoestring of a budget. If their reactor design can be realized as described, it's *very* elegant, doesn't require all those problems with tritium breeding solved, doesn't require a vast turbine array to make useful. It's a long shot but an attractive prize.
I think we'd both agree that for one of the most important challenges facing the human race, the total budget, manpower, and number of projects going on is pitiful.
fusion has the potential to provide more energy than harvestable insolation
Yeah, but we don't use anything like the amount of harvestable insolation ; the effect from reduced greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be more significant than the increased thermal emissions. If we're replacing existing energy consumption with fusion, the heat emissions shouldn't change. If we expand our energy usage, we can also look at methods of sequestering carbon or other forms of geoengineering.
I really hope one of the other fusion projects succeeds before then. The earlier we get it, the better.
Lockheed claim they might have a prototype by 2019 and a commercial unit by 2024.
Then you have the likes of the Focus Fusion thing, shooting for the big prize, proton-boron fusion (less neutrons, no need to breed tritium, efficient solid-state energy conversion), that has made more progress (in terms of particle energy * confinement time) in the last 5 years on a few million bucks than ITER has in 8 with billions.
Both approaches are a lot smaller than the aircraft-carrier sized reactor (no, not sized for an aircraft carrier, as big as an aircraft carrier) that tokamak designs predict will be useful ; a bunch of small, municipal reactors the size of shipping containers will make for a more robust, more democratic, less monopolistic and corrupt energy generation system.
Yeah, they killed the last one, Osama Bin Goldstein, after they realized his ailing health meant that he wouldn't be around to fill the role for much longer.
It's in the same space as other editors-made-of-browser-technology as Komodo and Atom ; it's not a full version of Visual Studio.
My preference in that space is still Komodo Edit ; it has the benefit of maturity. Atom has that liveliness that new projects do. VSC? Not sure how it will attract the community it needs to thrive.
Extracting energy from the wind will cool the planet down, if some of it is "baked into" products - e.g. if you power an LED array illuminating an algae farm and use the bio-oil to make plastic, some of that that energy is then trapped in the plastic. Or you could just power an LED array and shine the light into space - the energy leaves the planet, the Earth is cooled.
What it can't do is warm the planet. Wind is powered by sunshine, and will naturally end up as heat anyway.
Our government are imagining it will come from fracking ; they've already passed laws that make it legal to frack under any land (regardless of it's ownership), and use any fracking fluid, and keep it a secret as to what is being used.
They stole the name "Living Wage" from the... Living Wage Foundation, a charity. Then redefined it as somewhat less than what is agreed to be a living wage. Just another bit of doublespeak.
Yeah, and they've been guaranteed a spot price double the going rate, index linked to inflation. It makes even the greenest, tree-huggiest eco-energy platform look cheap.
Less about providing for our infrastructure and more about the nest-eggs of our politicians.
And guaranteed them a spot price double the going rate. They're only interested in helping taxpayers money into the pockets of those who can bribe them.
as if water soaking into them when they cook is supposed to somehow change the nutritional picture
Of course it does - it increases the mass of them greatly and decreases the density of nutrients, because now the bean contains a bunch of water, which, surprise, has no calories and protein. It doesn't change the proportions, but it does change the portions, they triple in mass.
As my other post explains, per-calorie is deeply misleading - lettuce has 13 calories per 100g. Even if it's 36% protein by calories, it's 0.8 grams of protein per 100g. To get enough protein from lettuce, you'd have to eat seven kilos of it per day (for the average 70kg man - that's 10% of your body weight).
My figures above for kidney beans (24g protein / 100g) are for dried ; cooked they are more like 8g / 100g, so you'd have to eat 700g of cooked kidney beans (a pound and a half) to get enough protein for a day.
A "complete" protein source would be one that provides sufficient quantities of the nine essential amino acids for human survival. Owing to our similarity to animals, animal protein is typically complete - but fish can be short on some amino acids. The relatively recent phenomenon of much taller people in Japan has been linked to their diet changing from rice and vegetables with a little fish to a more Western diet with more milk and meat.
The key problem here is "protein per calorie" - this is an excellent way to distort the truth.
Spinach - second on the chart with 50% of it's calories from protein. Sounds great, doesn't it?
Spinach has 24 calories per 100g, 2.9 grams of protein.
Let's assume it's nutritionally complete protein (it isn't, the amino acid profile isn't right) ; recommended amount is 56 gram for the "average sedentary man".
You'd have to eat nearly 2 kilos of spinach a day to get that much. And that's one of the richest plant sources of protein per calorie. That 2 kilos of spinach will get you 480 calories, so on top of that whopping 2 kilos of leaves, you'll also have to eat some other stuff to make up the other 2000 calories the average mean needs to consume to survive. Greens are NOT a viable source of protein.
Beans are somewhat better, e.g. raw kidney beans, one of the most best protein contents, at 24g of protein per 100g. You'll "only" have to eat 250g or so (half a pound) of those ; you'll still come up short on calories, you'd need to eat about 750g to meet caloric requirements.
So yes, it's possible to get all your protein from non-animal sources, but it's something of a chore, and you'll eat a lot of soy.
Honey is bee puke. They have a "many bees, one cell" puking, eating and re-puking party to make it.
Beans are the reproductive vessels of plants. We're eating innocent bean plants that could have grown and thrived.
Salad leaves are cut from their living bodies.
We're not plants. Inevitably, our food involves the death and destruction of other species, or biological processes, yes, including excretion, even if it's just your bread inflated by the microfarts of yeast.
Your glass of algae still has to decompose, it just does it in your belly instead, first at the hands of your stomach acids and enzymes, then it's passed through a festering mess of bacteria. As you note, microorganisms are vicious bastards that produce all kinds of toxins, far more than macroorganisms. One man's toxin is another man's glass of Chateau Lafite...
The notion that you can somehow strive for "cleanliness" in your food is just effete pretence. Even that bag of Soylent is the product of things writhing through dirt and striving to exist before they are cut down in their prime and ground up.
I implore you to get help for your food aversion - you're really missing out on some delicious stuff.
Want a patty custom ground out of 1/3 pork, 2/3 bison? No problems. The price of a burger is already set by the market. This thing eliminates the labour, the savings can be spent on high-end ingredients, gourmet burgers for McD's prices.
The graph in this article is also a great illustration of why all the "oh, but tech makes new job opportunities" guys are wrong this time around ; the food-service industry already absorbed more than the unemployment from the manufacturing industry in the US, trading well-paid labour for subsistence on tips.
to pay for basic income, everyone has to earn less
I don't think that's accurate. Productivity since the 70s has doubled, but real-terms wages have been stagnant. In the last 3 decades, the top 0.1% of Americans have doubled their wealth. It's obvious that improved technology can maintain the same lifestyle for the same number of people but with the labour of fewer people - the maintenance of employment levels has mostly been due to the improvement of that basic lifestyle (smartphones, better medical technology, etc) providing jobs for displaced farm workers etc. The system we have encourages spending the extra productivity of technology and economic growth on an expanded lifestyle, but it could be diverted instead to providing a basic lifestyle without requiring extra labour.
I like the idea of everyone earning a set amount and then working for more, but then the system breaks down, because nobody wants to contribute back.
In the trials of Basic Income that have been done so far, the total amount of work drops about 4%, mostly accounted for by teenage students studying instead of working to support their family, and mothers looking after their kids. The local economy grows.
The truth is that the majority of people want to keep their own success
Is it entirely their own?
"forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won’t admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we’d be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit"
- Nick Hanauer (self-described billionaire plutocrat)
The wealth that a few accumulate is based on the labour, and custom, of the many. It depends on a working society. If your society collapses because people can't afford to eat, then you're just a guy with a nice house fending off the starving hordes with a shotgun. And your delivery of fresh organic produce isn't coming this week.
Basic Income isn't about redistributing wealth evenly ; it's about making sure that no-one starves, and yes, it's also about making sure that the businesses of today have customers tomorrow. The Citigroup Plutonomy Report aside, not everyone can make a living making gold-plated iPhones and giant yachts.
Slashdot Mirror
No chance.
This "install your own root CA" trick is being used widely in corporate environments to allow proxies to snoop your HTTPS connections ; caused no end of trouble with clients using independent Firefox installs (Chrome uses the system certificate store, Firefox has it's own) navigating to our pages (with properly signed certificates) and being told they were a security risk.
We also had something that directed traffic while we were out of the corporate network through a third-party proxy that used the same trick (Websense).
There are commercial drivers for battery and renewable research though - there are existing industries that will benefit, and clear advantages. Batteries and renewables are technologies in use NOW and the commercial sector excels at improving existing tech.
What it sucks at is basic research. We need more money for fusion, not less, and spread across multiple projects. Really, I wish they'd declare war on the energy crisis and have a Manhattan Project for fusion, alas, there's a more obvious target, and that's annexing what remaining fossil fuel reserves we have, and the money will probably be poured into that instead. $2T dollars for the Iraq war : total all time USA fusion research funding, adjusted for inflation, less than $30B.
The theory is using a photoelectic method ; an "onion" of metallic layers which the x-rays jostle electrons out of.
TBH that could/should probably be researched in parallel.
But the pulsed methods all face commercialization challenges on achieving rapid firing rates
You're not joking. You'd need 10 shots a second ; I liken it to developing the worlds most accurate and reliable machine gun, firing the worlds most expensive cryogenically cooled ammunition (while gold-plated uranium bullets are pretty expensive, the real kicker is the tritium, $30,000 a gram), into the heart of a machine that somehow combines a laser array several orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else we've ever developed AND the heat exchangers required to get the energy out somehow without anything getting in the way of the other stuff. NIF is a weapons research programme : the "energy" agenda is just a way to get it some extra support.
Yes, Lerner is a bit kooky. Kekule dreamed of snakes biting each others tails and discovered the molecular structure of benzene. If a working fusion reactor design comes from a weird and controversial idea about the origin of the universe, I'm fine with that. I hold out as much hope for the focus fusor as I do for ITER - ie, not a lot, but there is something there ; they get neutrons, and the size of their device means they can strip it down and refine it every few months, whereas ITER does not live up to it's name - a single prototype that takes 15 years is not "ITERative". At the very least they are learning stuff about plasma physics and doing it on a relative shoestring of a budget. If their reactor design can be realized as described, it's *very* elegant, doesn't require all those problems with tritium breeding solved, doesn't require a vast turbine array to make useful. It's a long shot but an attractive prize.
I think we'd both agree that for one of the most important challenges facing the human race, the total budget, manpower, and number of projects going on is pitiful.
fusion has the potential to provide more energy than harvestable insolation
Yeah, but we don't use anything like the amount of harvestable insolation ; the effect from reduced greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be more significant than the increased thermal emissions. If we're replacing existing energy consumption with fusion, the heat emissions shouldn't change. If we expand our energy usage, we can also look at methods of sequestering carbon or other forms of geoengineering.
I really hope one of the other fusion projects succeeds before then. The earlier we get it, the better.
Lockheed claim they might have a prototype by 2019 and a commercial unit by 2024.
Then you have the likes of the Focus Fusion thing, shooting for the big prize, proton-boron fusion (less neutrons, no need to breed tritium, efficient solid-state energy conversion), that has made more progress (in terms of particle energy * confinement time) in the last 5 years on a few million bucks than ITER has in 8 with billions.
Both approaches are a lot smaller than the aircraft-carrier sized reactor (no, not sized for an aircraft carrier, as big as an aircraft carrier) that tokamak designs predict will be useful ; a bunch of small, municipal reactors the size of shipping containers will make for a more robust, more democratic, less monopolistic and corrupt energy generation system.
There's been a move for some time to put RFIDs with UUIDs on them in all EU banknotes.
Hah, can't see that happening, the phone networks still make an absolute fortune off them.
Yeah, they killed the last one, Osama Bin Goldstein, after they realized his ailing health meant that he wouldn't be around to fill the role for much longer.
No, it's JIT or AOT compiled.
Intermediate is the key word ; it's compiled to an assembly language for a virtual machine, not al all unlike Java bytecode.
That is then subsequently compiled to machine code best matching the capability of the platform it's running on, just like Java.
It's based on Electron, the core of Atom.
My preference in the editors-made-of-browser-tech space is still Komodo Edit, but I like the liveliness that Atom has.
It's in the same space as other editors-made-of-browser-technology as Komodo and Atom ; it's not a full version of Visual Studio.
My preference in that space is still Komodo Edit ; it has the benefit of maturity. Atom has that liveliness that new projects do. VSC? Not sure how it will attract the community it needs to thrive.
Extracting energy from the wind will cool the planet down, if some of it is "baked into" products - e.g. if you power an LED array illuminating an algae farm and use the bio-oil to make plastic, some of that that energy is then trapped in the plastic. Or you could just power an LED array and shine the light into space - the energy leaves the planet, the Earth is cooled.
What it can't do is warm the planet. Wind is powered by sunshine, and will naturally end up as heat anyway.
Our government are imagining it will come from fracking ; they've already passed laws that make it legal to frack under any land (regardless of it's ownership), and use any fracking fluid, and keep it a secret as to what is being used.
They stole the name "Living Wage" from the ... Living Wage Foundation, a charity. Then redefined it as somewhat less than what is agreed to be a living wage. Just another bit of doublespeak.
Yeah, and they've been guaranteed a spot price double the going rate, index linked to inflation. It makes even the greenest, tree-huggiest eco-energy platform look cheap.
Less about providing for our infrastructure and more about the nest-eggs of our politicians.
helped get new nuclear plants built in the UK
And guaranteed them a spot price double the going rate. They're only interested in helping taxpayers money into the pockets of those who can bribe them.
Or Jean-Claude Van Damme. He can cope with the ass-kicking as well.
It doesn't make the job of finding terrorists easier.
Even if your terrorism detector algorithm is 99.99% accurate, in the USA, that would falsely identify 35,000 innocent people as terrorists.
The number of case officers you'd need to vet them all is huge. And 99.99% is really, really optimistic. 99.9%? 350,000 suspects. 99%? 3.5 million.
Now, the three letter agencies have people that can do maths. They know this.
Using Occam's Razor ; the reason for blanket surveillance programs isn't terrorist detection. It's profiling and control of mass populations.
as if water soaking into them when they cook is supposed to somehow change the nutritional picture
Of course it does - it increases the mass of them greatly and decreases the density of nutrients, because now the bean contains a bunch of water, which, surprise, has no calories and protein. It doesn't change the proportions, but it does change the portions, they triple in mass.
As my other post explains, per-calorie is deeply misleading - lettuce has 13 calories per 100g. Even if it's 36% protein by calories, it's 0.8 grams of protein per 100g. To get enough protein from lettuce, you'd have to eat seven kilos of it per day (for the average 70kg man - that's 10% of your body weight).
My figures above for kidney beans (24g protein / 100g) are for dried ; cooked they are more like 8g / 100g, so you'd have to eat 700g of cooked kidney beans (a pound and a half) to get enough protein for a day.
The human body can manufacture many of the 21 amino acids it requires from other amino acids, but cannot do this for nine of them.
These nine are the essential amino acids (in the human diet).
A "complete" protein source would be one that provides sufficient quantities of the nine essential amino acids for human survival. Owing to our similarity to animals, animal protein is typically complete - but fish can be short on some amino acids. The relatively recent phenomenon of much taller people in Japan has been linked to their diet changing from rice and vegetables with a little fish to a more Western diet with more milk and meat.
The key problem here is "protein per calorie" - this is an excellent way to distort the truth.
Spinach - second on the chart with 50% of it's calories from protein. Sounds great, doesn't it?
Spinach has 24 calories per 100g, 2.9 grams of protein.
Let's assume it's nutritionally complete protein (it isn't, the amino acid profile isn't right) ; recommended amount is 56 gram for the "average sedentary man".
You'd have to eat nearly 2 kilos of spinach a day to get that much. And that's one of the richest plant sources of protein per calorie. That 2 kilos of spinach will get you 480 calories, so on top of that whopping 2 kilos of leaves, you'll also have to eat some other stuff to make up the other 2000 calories the average mean needs to consume to survive. Greens are NOT a viable source of protein.
Beans are somewhat better, e.g. raw kidney beans, one of the most best protein contents, at 24g of protein per 100g. You'll "only" have to eat 250g or so (half a pound) of those ; you'll still come up short on calories, you'd need to eat about 750g to meet caloric requirements.
So yes, it's possible to get all your protein from non-animal sources, but it's something of a chore, and you'll eat a lot of soy.
Honey is bee puke. They have a "many bees, one cell" puking, eating and re-puking party to make it.
Beans are the reproductive vessels of plants. We're eating innocent bean plants that could have grown and thrived.
Salad leaves are cut from their living bodies.
We're not plants. Inevitably, our food involves the death and destruction of other species, or biological processes, yes, including excretion, even if it's just your bread inflated by the microfarts of yeast.
Your glass of algae still has to decompose, it just does it in your belly instead, first at the hands of your stomach acids and enzymes, then it's passed through a festering mess of bacteria. As you note, microorganisms are vicious bastards that produce all kinds of toxins, far more than macroorganisms. One man's toxin is another man's glass of Chateau Lafite...
The notion that you can somehow strive for "cleanliness" in your food is just effete pretence. Even that bag of Soylent is the product of things writhing through dirt and striving to exist before they are cut down in their prime and ground up.
I implore you to get help for your food aversion - you're really missing out on some delicious stuff.
You won't have too long to wait.
Momentum Machines burger maker.
Want a patty custom ground out of 1/3 pork, 2/3 bison? No problems. The price of a burger is already set by the market. This thing eliminates the labour, the savings can be spent on high-end ingredients, gourmet burgers for McD's prices.
The graph in this article is also a great illustration of why all the "oh, but tech makes new job opportunities" guys are wrong this time around ; the food-service industry already absorbed more than the unemployment from the manufacturing industry in the US, trading well-paid labour for subsistence on tips.
to pay for basic income, everyone has to earn less
I don't think that's accurate. Productivity since the 70s has doubled, but real-terms wages have been stagnant. In the last 3 decades, the top 0.1% of Americans have doubled their wealth. It's obvious that improved technology can maintain the same lifestyle for the same number of people but with the labour of fewer people - the maintenance of employment levels has mostly been due to the improvement of that basic lifestyle (smartphones, better medical technology, etc) providing jobs for displaced farm workers etc. The system we have encourages spending the extra productivity of technology and economic growth on an expanded lifestyle, but it could be diverted instead to providing a basic lifestyle without requiring extra labour.
I like the idea of everyone earning a set amount and then working for more, but then the system breaks down, because nobody wants to contribute back.
In the trials of Basic Income that have been done so far, the total amount of work drops about 4%, mostly accounted for by teenage students studying instead of working to support their family, and mothers looking after their kids. The local economy grows.
The truth is that the majority of people want to keep their own success
Is it entirely their own?
"forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won’t admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we’d be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit"
- Nick Hanauer (self-described billionaire plutocrat)
The wealth that a few accumulate is based on the labour, and custom, of the many. It depends on a working society. If your society collapses because people can't afford to eat, then you're just a guy with a nice house fending off the starving hordes with a shotgun. And your delivery of fresh organic produce isn't coming this week.
Basic Income isn't about redistributing wealth evenly ; it's about making sure that no-one starves, and yes, it's also about making sure that the businesses of today have customers tomorrow. The Citigroup Plutonomy Report aside, not everyone can make a living making gold-plated iPhones and giant yachts.