Batteries are measured in Watt-Hours, NOT Watts. They store energy, they don't generate it. Thus the statement "California has added 18.5 gigawatts of new resources. Of that, 6.6 gigawatts were batteries..." is nonsensical. A gigawatt of coal or natural gas generation is a gigawatt as long as fuel is available, a gigawatt of wind lasts as long as the wind blows hard, and a gigawatt of solar lasts as long as the sun shines strongly. The difference between battery storage and true generation is that the battery is only time-shifting previously generated energy, not actually generating any new energy. Thus the 6.6 gigawatts of battery can't be meaningfully part of the 18.5 gigawatts of new resources. The battery plant is chemically limited to its specified capacity, regardless of how much coal-, natural gas-, solar-, or wind-derived energy is available to store. It's more likely that the battery number is gigawatt-hours, which means the "generation" capacity of the battery is one hour at that load. California's quoted numbers are highly misleading, if not outright lies.

My first Sinclair product was the astounding Sinclair Scientific calculator, which revolutionized my engineering education. It used RPN, with a sharp little LED numeric readout behind a very cool purple window. It could do complex number math using polar coordinates using its RPN operation stack, invaluable for my AC Circuit Analysis class. I bought the ‘48 later, and even though I was a mainframe programmer at the time, the thought of having this much algorithmic power on my TV was intoxicating. I would write simple basic programs for all kinds of iterative functions, but soon discovered what Feynman called “the computer disease”: spending all my time finessing code, and less and less solving actual problems :)

The address was 127.0.0.1. After a raid by police of school board membersâ(TM) home computers, every board member was fired for secretly participating in the plot.

But your statement and its obverse are NOT science. No observations need be performed. These derive directly from basic logic. As with the square circle, logical derivations arenâ(TM)t subject to science. Theyâ(TM)re intrinsic truths that operate outside science. So your example is irrelevant to the current discussion..

LOL! Saying that " The plural of anecdote is not data " means " A single anecdote is an observation " is like saying " 20% of all people have been the victim of a crime " means " 80% of all people are criminals. " Perhaps you can agree with this: " The absence of data is not data. "

Itâ(TM)s only offensive in the fantasy minds of woke-scolds. The term has been widely used many times, as recently as last month, by multiple gay rights magazines, including The Advocate, plus Joe Biden, innumerable pieces of legislation, and Mayze Hirono hirself.

On Sept. 25, 2020, The Advocate tweeted out a story from its publication with this quote: âoeTo come from that history to be able to now, as a director, be telling these stories (...) about young people who are just comfortable with who they are, no matter what their sexual preference is.â Wokesplaining rejected. Grammar police defunded. Kangaroo court adjourned.

In other news, the Josiah Zayner moon rocket failed to get out of his backyard. Miriam Webster, after revising the definition of âoesexual preferenceâ to mark the term offensive during the ACB confirmation hearing, has added a new verb to its dictionary:

âoeZaner v. The act of attempting science without understanding science, and calling the result science, combined with being surprised.â

Ex: âoeBob poked his eyes out in order to perform a double-blind experiment for his study. Bob is surprised to realize that this complicated data analysis.â

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Well, really it's not. There is plenty of blame to go around for allowing DoS attacks. Microsoft's Windows Virus Development Platform, for example. Worse IoT device manufacturers have shipped ridiculously easily Botted devices. Neither security failure is the fault of "the people who let their infected computers spread crap".

It's too late to fix that now, so bellyaching about it is pointless. However, a ten year mandatory hard labor prison sentence is an excellent deterrent, and I argue it's a perfectly reasonable punishment given the crime, which can only be deliberate and malicious. For instance, USC Section 924(e) provides a mandatory minimum penalty of 15 years if a person commits a firearms offense and has previously been convicted of three or more violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

LOL! Yeah, traitor literally means “person who posts something I don’t like” :)

Clearly, botnet “herders” are also DOS attackers. so 10 years for them too when you can find them. As for punishing ISPs because they didn’t do something you felt they are supposed to do to protect you, sorry, ISPs don’t provide protection. That’s your job. I hope you got some.

I said “deliberate” DoS attack. That’s an attack planned, controlled, and perpetrated by the attacker. It’s not cheerleading people to visit the website. So no. and I make no distinction between and DDoS and a DoS attack. They are both deliberate malicious attempts to deny people access to their legitimate services. That’s criminal, it doesn’t matter if you use a method that happens to be harder to block.

The penalty for ANY deliberate DoS attack should be at least ten years hard labor. Sit-around prison is too good for them. Because such attacks are always premeditated, and harm innocent parties, there is no room for moderation in sentencing. There can be no extenuating circumstances. Just as you canâ(TM)t accidentally rob a bank, you canâ(TM)t accidentally assault marshall the bots used for a DoS attack. DoS attackers need a deterrent. As anyone whoâ(TM)s had their business decimated by such an attack can attest, there is no way to recover your losses, and courts rarely award restitution. This cyberturd admits he did the attack, so no appeal on technical grounds. I have zero sympathy for idiots like this. Only the threat of hard prison times can deter such parasites.

UAV flights are PROHIBITED at night, even in Class G airspace, without a special FAA waiver. So either the FAA has a waiver on file, or they have full authorization to interdict these drones and identify the pirate operators. The idea that they canâ(TM)t do anything is ludicrous.

UAV are PROHIBITED at night, even in Class G airspace, without a special FAA permit. So either the FAA has a permit on file, or they have full authorization to interdict these drones and identify the pirate operators. The idea that they canâ(TM)t do anything is ludicrous.