Recent Comments

My room varies tremendously in temperature (40°-115°F between late night winters and midday summers - it's in a steel warehouse) and it is impossible to sleep late when it's hot. Conversely, it's hard to get out from under the covers when it's cold. A preindustrial society wouldn't be able to do much about the temperature but they would have a way of insulating themselves from light so as not to be woken by the sunrise shining on their faces. I suspect that's why the authors went with temperature as the main factor.

...so it would be difficult for anyone to read any of the works in their entirety by repeatedly entering different search requests.

Ok.... I say 'stupid' with a very bad conscience. The ruling shows a remarkable common sense. But difficult? I suppose it never occured to them that people could write a script, which does this automatically. And then automatically stitches the pieces together. Unless of course, if there are certain pages, which regardless of search terms are never shown.

The closer you are to the equator, the less is the difference between day time and night time over the year. In spring and summer, where the days are long, I also need very little sleep. 5-6 hours. Absolutely within the range of above mentioned societies. In autumn and winter sometimes even 9hrs are not enough for me. Fortunately I can 'extend' the days with certain light sources.

And that is exactly what the article says:

Hunter-gatherers sleep an hour more in the winter than they do in the summer.

Even though:

It appears that their sleep time may have more to do with temperature than with light.

Maybe. The temperature in my bedroom is almost constant over the year... so no own experience here.

But I really would like to know, if there is a correlation of distance from the equator and sleep time.
Namibia is farthest away from the equator. Could it be that there the sleeping time is more in the 7.1 hour range? While in Tanzania, which is closest to the equator, the time is more in the 5.7 hour range?

I, an AC, have done exactly the same for Slashdot and SoylentNews, partly because of poor story selection, and partly because of the trolls. It just wasn't worth the hassle of reading through the crap.

I have to agree with this. I'd be very annoyed if I submitted a story and had some douche edit my summary to say things that weren't even in the linked articles. This swings both ways on the right-left political spectrum, but ideology pushers, either extremely religious (right authoritarian) or extremely social justice (left authoritarian), have a way if weaseling into a community then supporting each other while belittling everyone else to keep out any wrong think. In the end it always ends up as a minority of moderators / editors pushing their personal views while suppressing the majority of the community.

I've been fortunate enough to have the few things I've submitted accepted with some minor, and very appreciated, edits. I don't need someone butchering a summary to make an example out of me because of my stance on proactive diversity or feminism or gamergate or some other insignificant issue everyone else may or may not care about.

Legal solutions for technical problems don't usually work out well. You'll be able to demand what ever you want, what will happen is anyone's guess. Large companies will likely try to follow the law, but purposefully or not, fail to. Smaller companies will totally ignore it, as the evidence that you are being tracked is difficult to collect and probably more difficult to prove in a court of law.

Like someone else said, we need to redo how the HTTP and browsers work to try and come up with a technical assurance that no tracking is taking place. Of course that's easier said then done. And really, I'm not sure it can be done.

If there's something wrong with a submission, you can resubmit a better one easily enough, and vote-down the original. A wiki would be all kinds of extra complexity (ownership, 3RR, POV pushing, etc.) that isn't needed for something so ephemeral.

I've been operating the pipe as the first option describes, over the past few weeks... Submissions (even my own) sit there until they get to +3, then published to the front page. I haven't seen any problems, yet, though a threshold of +5 is probably more practical.

The story submission process is kinda static - until a |. editor gets ahold of it. Why not make submitted stories editable in the same way wikipedia articles are?

I don't frequently comment, but I thought I'd also chime in to say what a great job you're doing with this site. I like the look and feel as well as a lot of the features. The content is also pretty good, IMHO, and that's a real achievement give how few contributors you have.

Thanks Bryan and also to those that submit content for keeping this site going.

By far my biggest problem with Pipedot is this: the impossibility of viewing deep replies.

Unless I'm missing something, the only way I can access the reply to my comment (and I'm fairly sure there was one...) is by finding it in my notifications.

What's the point in even having Pipedot if it won't show our conversations?

Unless I'm missing something, thing isn't configurable. The vanishing-comments 'feature' is just set in stone. (A reminder: Pipedot isn't exactly overflowing with comments. There's no need for this.)

All very nice updates and it's great to see this site isn't abandoned, even if it isn't very traffic. I can appreciate it from a technical standpoint even if I don't comment that often. I'd love to see the back-end used by other sites but even if it never is more fully utilized, Pipedot stands as a testament of your skill. Great job.

Stupid idiots is all I can say. First we need to pay to be spied on and then we need to pay extra not to be spied on.

Pretty much! I drank a cold Dr. Pepper too fast.

The end result should be VW pays massive fines...

Or, even better, convince VW and others to take plug in electrics more seriously and introduce their own models. Can't fail an emission test if you have zero emissions.

VW cheated, but on the plus side, it brought to attention the fact that almost everyone is missing the target. I'm not convinced though that every manufacturer that targets the American and European markets isn't well aware of the gaps between the tests and the requirements. It may not be cheating, but it's still gaming the system.

The end result should be VW pays massive fines (at least as much as they got in profit from the cars they sold) and the rules/test fixed to close the gap that the other manufacturers are clearly exploiting.

I thought US Vice President Joe Biden's advice was far better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv66RiFC4T0

Cool - I use GuerrillaMail to sign up to sites that I know I will never need/want to recover login information for. However, I've always been at a loss for logins such as those for online stores and end up providing my real email. Nice to know that this service provides an alternative.

I've recently started using the browser extension uMatrix for control over the first and third party requests made by a website. Previously, I used RequestPolicy for this, but uMatrix allows for finer grained control, such as blocking/allowing a specific class of request (such as images, css, or javascript) by domain on a site-by-site basis. The inbuilt support to block known bad hosts is also a plus. In the extreme case, you can achieve the functionality that you mentioned by blocking everything by default.

Those manufacturers didn't cheat, they passed the test fair and square. It's just that the tests don't represent the conditions that people typically drive.

On the other hand VW cheated

For telling us how to avoid government spying.

post button was a tad too close to 'preview' for my sloppy clicking - failed to finish editing; incomplete but acceptable...

Actually, Gmail works best if you disable JavaScript...

See: http://pipedot.org/comment/2TPQ

How.. did you turn your mind off? Frozen?

It is getting to the point where users need a "do not track" flag for Windows. One flag: no tracking, spying, reporting home, telemetry.. or anything else.

Probably should turn my mind on before I get out of bed, rather than later in the day:

... and people would just refuse to use the secure browsers rather than demand that the website changes its policies.

Interesting article.

You raise some good points, too. The problem I see with making browsers more focused on privacy and security is that so many websites would stop working with them. Hotmail, GMail, and so many others would become even more useless than they presently are, and people would just refuse to use them rather than demand that the website changes its policies.

I don't think users should demand that websites do not track us, I think that websites should be asking us if we mind that they track us. An important distinction - in the first, they assume that they have this right, in the second they ask us for permission.

Which is why I haven't signed up for any social networking sites or any online mail providers etc. ever.

I haven't even created a google account for using my android phone (which makes getting apps a little more work)

You can stick all your walled gardens (more like sheep pens) where the sun don't shine !

This is a good article explaining how Facebook is becoming even more intrusive, and how it might be violating current laws:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies-confusing-consumers-profit

I'd say web browsers are to blame. They are built on the model of "trust everything", which is the source of so many problems. Popups and the blink tag are a thing of the past, because web browsers chose to eliminate them. They could just as easily eliminate most "web bugs" that allow user tracking and other annoyances. If privacy and security were primary considerations, instead of "Does this pixel show up EXACTLY where it was supposed to?" the web could be a far faster, safer, and more private place.

In the extreme case, imagine all web browsers only rendered basic HTML by default... If you want to accept cookies, load images, scripts, or 3rd party CSS on a given page, you just hit a toolbar button to do so, but otherwise you get the basic version (with placeholders) with no possibility of 3rd party tracking, no floating toolbars or overlay ads, no user-hostile scripts that disable right-clicking, etc. It would be slightly inonvenient for users, but has many advantages, and would be a strong incentive for sites to rely less on those web bugs.

and if you don't mind the hazard of flaming wreckage falling on your citizens.

Ah yes. That.

Could a balloon be engineered to 'fail safe'... like a self-destruct? If it burns up quickly in case of fire and carries only a light payload (some kind of radio repeater), I imagine the risk could be mitigated. I guess there's always the vulnerability to vandalism though.

I've always wondered how they did that for shipping cargo, but the more modular your pieces are the easier it becomes as there are more possible permutations. With a cargo container as the smallest block, it becomes more difficult. The giant cargo ships carry so many, that its a bit easier to figureout and some of it probably comes out int he wash. Like trying to balance chicken feathers and eagle feathers, no combination of them is going to break a boat.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365124484/
ScienceNOW has an episode about Sprites a couple years ago. It's worth a watch.

I don't see how TPP makes things any worse than the current DMCA ("TPP allows countries to create security exemptions").

They could also just rotate various containers 180 degrees, and swap some front to back, etc. That would be more in line with how cargo planes (and passenger planes) deal with uneven loads.

The cost of helium is not a critical factor. Even at a very generous $10/m^3, the cost to fill Hindenburg 100% with helium would be $2 million. But it would cost at least $45 million (simply tracking general inflation), and quite possible $100-200 million to build Hindenburg today. Operations are such as not to expend any gas. Diffusion and leakage could certainly be kept to less than the amount of one filling per year.

But yes, certainly hydrogen could technically be used if you could get your craft certified with it, and if you don't mind the hazard of flaming wreckage falling on your citizens.

If Hindenburg were filled with natural gas instead of hydrogen, she couldn't have lifted her empty weight off the ground with zero payload and fuel. The following figures are based on very favorable conditions for static lift. More realistic conditions (say 15-25 C, and just 300 m MSL initial cruise altitude) would lower them significantly

Gas capacity = 202 000 m^3
Air density at 0 C, 101 325 Pa = 1.292 kg/m^3
Hydrogen density at 0 C, 101 325 Pa = 0.090 kg/m^3
Hydrogen lift at 0 C, 101 325 Pa = 1.292 - 0.090 = 1.202 kg/m^3
Gross lift 100% filled with hydrogen = 202 000 x 1.202 = 242 800 kg
Methane density at 0 C, 101 325 Pa = 0.716 kg/m^3
Methane lift at 0 C, 101 325 Pa = 1.292 - 0.716 = 0.559 kg
Gross lift 100% filled with methane = 202 000 x 0.559 = 112 900 kg
Weight empty = 118 000 kg

If she had been designed from the ground up for methane, restressed for the lower weights, de-engined for a slower speed (less aerodynamic stress) and carrying fewer passengers, it probably would have been possible to get a ship capable of lifting perhaps (optimistically) 1/4 as much useful lift. Still-air range would have been around 2000 km instead of 12 000 km (usable range with reserves considerably less).

At the highest levels, AMD appear to have stopped trying to compete and started looking for "efficiencies" within their business. Looking back to the 1980s, they're going to make themselves so efficient they can't actually build anything.

My last AMD CPU was an AMD166, unfortunately. Every time I upgrade they've made another cock-up. I'd love to buy an 8-core AMD CPU with a few gigs of RAM - top performance isn't my goal, it's basically efficient use of my money. They used to be the place to go.

Because when it comes in it may be illegal to use the tools required to determine that the.software is faulty http://boingboing.net/2015/10/13/tpp-requires-countries-to-seiz.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoLifter

At least something useful was done with the hangar after they bankrupted.

More luck to Aeroscraft.

Actually, natural gas is cheap, highly buoyant, and not as escape prone as helium or hydrogen... Still highly flammable, and could be used to run the engines as well.

Understanding only a little about how cargo containers are used, I would assume they are filled by volume rather than weight ( except in the cases of extremely heaving materiel, like iridium ingots or something) . So unless all of the cargo containers are of equal weight, you might have an issue with weight distribution without some smart software to figure that out. I'm assuming that wouldn't be too difficult for a company that designs planes, rockets, and space ships. But I guess that would have to be considered at least. I might not be able to send certain combinations of cargo containers, which might be an issue for my horse feather and iridium Ingot company.

As I understand it, the high price of helium is one of the major issues with airships. Could you use (yes, flammable) hydrogen instead, especially for unmanned floating-installation type applications?

If you want to bounce radio signals off something a mile up in the sky, would a hydrogen-filled balloon do the job? The safety issue is surely not a big one if it's not designed to regularly land: a Hindenburg situation seems unlikely if it's neither carrying people nor intended to land.

Mylar seems strong, until it gets nicked... One tiny little puncture, and the tear will propagate wildly, basically shredding.

Even if you eliminated material strength concerns, it's still a huge step backwards. Hard to believe someone found some way to make 8" floppies sound like a technically superior and more convenient option...

There is no giant airship to show off. It is an idea; nothing more.

The Dragon Dream was strictly a demonstrator, capable of no payload whatsoever. It mever flew. Not once. It made a very timid tethered float like a kid's balloon on a string. Basically they proved that, yes, helium weighs less than air, yes, you can lift things with it, and yes, you can compress and expand it. All that has been well-known for a century. The roof of their decrepit hangar fell in and wrecked it, and they scrapped it, since there was nothing to be gained from it.

Question. Has the hangar roof been surveyed, repaired, and proofed yet? Are they sure they won't overstran it again by hanging heavy weights from it?

I doubt VERY much that they have actual funding to build the full-size model. They might POSSIBLY have enough to crank out another, larger demonstrator.

I don't want any life-critical systems to depend on proper and careful handling a fiddly roll of paper tape.

Two words: mylar tape

Wow! You know, that would almost be worth it.

For many years, AMD kept Intel honest and largely pushed the performance to what it is today. With AMD, you would typically get faster clocks, more cores, larger dies, and a cheaper cost. Intel was forced to compete.

Remember Intel Itanium? AMD responded with a more sane alternative that even Intel eventually adopted a few years later. SATA 6GB? USB3? AMD's chipsets had them almost immediately, while Intel dragged their feet for years afterwards.

Although Moore's Law is still technically alive, they've essentially been "cheating" for the past 5+ years. All those new transistors are being added to the graphics and memory caches; performance of the cores have been relatively stagnant for some time now. For example, compare a 5 year old sandy bridge (i5-2500K) with a brand new skylake (i5-6600K) CPU. See how 5 years has added hardly any additional performance? Granted, the new chips are far more efficient energy wise, and you can now play some low end games on the integrated graphics, but still...

Various companies have made floppy drive emulators for quite a while.

http://www.floppydrive.eu/floppy-emudrive-wihout-case.html

Have attendants perform thorough decontaminations before the user is allowed to leave. You know, like that scene in Silkwood.

I'm a little surprised no one has come up with drop-in replacements that look to their hosts exactly like floppy drives but use a more modern storage medium. It's unprofitable to ramp up mass production of old floppy disks, but I could see a cottage industry being able to form in replacement hardware. I mean, the 3.5" drives in the old CNC machines in the shop I used to work were probably the same drives you'd find in any PC, right? (I know things were less standardized before 3.5", but still a limited number of formats and mechanisms.)