Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Maybe I'm stupid, but isn't this a lot of spin? (Score 1) 197

Assuming they didn't plan to pass the information on to an entity that would hack the machines on their behalf, which seems almost certain.

Or just pass the whole machine on to that entity, and let them work out how to hack it... Assuming that such entities don't already have access to such machines.

Comment Re:"The proposition was shocking" (Score 1) 197

But you don't use a federal agency where a significant proportion of the employees wouldn't agree with the intended use of the vulnerabilities.
It only took one edward snowden to leak exploits from the NSA, and the NSA as an agency targets foreign countries so most americans wouldn't have a problem with it. Once you had an agency using exploits to subvert the domestic vote you can guarantee that the majority of employees would be against it.

You'd get a voting machine to a friendly location - die hard domestic supporters, or a foreign power that aligns with your goals. And on the subject of foreign powers, it's almost certain that at least the russians and chinese already have access to these machines and have studied them, possibly other countries like iran and north korea too.

Comment Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score 1) 197

I recall the Arizona "fraudit" they claimed the machines did fraudulent counts of PAPER BALLOTS but the recount by people who had predetermined that it was miscounted for Biden found that their count instead of giving too many votes to Biden gave too few.

So the machines did give fraudulent counts and the claim was correct.

Comment Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score 3, Interesting) 197

Patching the vulnerabilities in the future wouldn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable last time it was used, and someone else could have independently found and exploited the vulnerabilities at the time.
Likely if vulnerabilities were found they would be used to claim that they were exploited during previous elections, and calling the results into question.

Comment Re:It's a loan (Score 1) 151

How the **** am I supposed to look into the details of how the contract will be enforced?? I can look an see prior contracts that were evaded by one means or another, several involving nuclear power plants, but that doesn't say about this one. But I would STRONGLY prefer supporting something with a lower down-side, like solar + wind plus some storage mechanism.

Comment Re:The Expense Is In The Shutdown And Cleanup (Score 1) 151

The one proposal I saw that I though looked interesting involved closed cycle in a deep well...about as deep as an oil well. Just about anywhere has hot rocks if you go that deep. The question is "Is there a good enough flow of heat for this to continue being useful?". I didn't see an answer to that, so that may still be site specific. Iceland has proven that can make it work when an active volcano is available, and it should work in Yellowstone. But that's shallow depth-site-specific. Can they get it deep enough to work most places? That, IIUC, is currently unknown. Will it be cheap enough to be worthwhile? I think that's also unknown.

Comment Re:what's wrong with you people? (Score 1) 121

I don't think a grant of one share of a specific stock will be a particularly educational event. I think generally in school a teach will, at some point, do a more educational exercise where students are actually doing mock trading and, critically, trying to evaluate different companies and make predictions on where things will go.

Comment Re:It's a loan (Score 1) 151

That's is you think the load will really be repaid. Past history does not cause me to be optimistic about this, though I haven't looked into the details or how the contract will be enforced. What happens if the company (which?) declares bankruptcy? What if it spins the asset/obligation off into a separate company that declares bankruptcy? It's happened before.

Comment Re:solar panels.... (Score 1) 151

Also the batteries (or other storage). Solar isn't a good source for a large constant load without a LOT of storage. (It *might* still be a better choice, though. But I'd want a mix of solar and wind, and LOTS of storage.)
Too bad geothermal hasn't been well enough developed, but I don't believe it has been.

Comment Re:The Expense Is In The Shutdown And Cleanup (Score 2) 151

I'm not sure about the last couple of decades, but prior to that geothermal was usually really a research project. Yeah, it was expensive, but boondoggle is the wrong framing.

OTOH, some of the recent proposals look serious. I'm not in a position to judge them, but maybe they're good. However they are still limited in the sites where they can operate. I'm not sure the ones that involve fracking are both safe and reasonable. And the closed circulation one that I've seen described is really still experimental. Once they get the bugs worked out of it, it may be a really good system, usable in a lot of places. My guess, though, is give it another 20 years before major investment.

Slashdot Top Deals

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?

Working...