Posts by Jellied Eel 5558 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Aug 2008
Got news for you, big ISPs are already doing DPI on every packet.
Got news for you. Big ISPs do lables, not packets. Switching > routing. Real TE is about CoS. CoS doesn't need more than the ToS bits, and arguably it should be kept that way because it's one way to prevent a lot of the abuses the nutty proffessor was ranting about.
Clearly you are out of the networking loop for the past 20 years if you don't know what deep packet inspection is.
No, I know exactly what deep packet inspection is. I'm more curious why you'd want to do it, and as a bonus thought for you, if it would be legal to perform DPI on every packet?
The alternative is far, far simpler and simply looking at the ToS bit on a lable, or if you absolutely have to, a packet header.
Your ISP already knows what you need low latency for, they can recognize VOIP or gaming packets without needing QoS to tell them.
How exactly would they do this?
and give people instructions to set the highest QoS level for every packet on their router.
MS once did this for all their packets. But QoS/CoS are the way to do this so the ISP just has to forward based on the lable, and not have to waste time/money/cycles looking deeper into the packet. But that's always been the real challenge with 'net neutrality, not the fantasy stuff the nutty professor reeled off. If ISPs (or apps) use CoS in an abusive manner, regulators can slap them with huge fines. If they just assign say, 128Kbps for EF with the intent it's used for voice, all is well.
Yeah, keep calling me dishonest with your LCOE figures from 2012.
Yep. You are dishonest. Again you're just cherry picking. Wind <£50! Praise the Lord! Can't deliver for that price? Demand more money!
Wind power generation in the UK is now double nuclear power generation. Why would that be?
I already told you this. Regulatory capture and decades of propaganda from neo-Luddites like yourself who think nuclear is dangerous. But I think you pretty much established that the only possible justification for wind is 'saving the planet', even though you can't quantify the impact. It's also obvious that windmills are extremeiy expensive, and environmentaly harmful. So if the objective is low carbon energy, then nuclear is obviously the answer. And oddly enough, government has proposed more NPPs. Naturally you and the rest of your shills oppose this idea because you want to keep the subsidies flowing amd cover our green & pleasent land with giant windmills.
Yeah, keep calling me ignorant with your cadmium bogus argument when cadmiun
.. is not the only toxic material present in solar panels?
You seem to confuse prices and costs. What electricity producers haves are costs. That's the 'C' in "LCOEs.
No, again this is your job. It kicked into high gear when DECC produced their LCOE here-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generation-costs.pdf
Which showed gas (CCGT) at £80/MWh, Nuclear (FOAK) at £81 and offshore wind at £118 (R2) and £134 (R3), and those being from 2012. So clearly wind was (and still is) far more expensive than nuclear. Of course the LCOE makes a whole bunch of assumptions, and excludes a bunch of very important costs. So nuclear has a capacity factor of around 95%, Wind only 23%. Wind output tends to zero on a calm day, but nuclear keeps on going.
So a more accurate cost would be £120/MWh for wind, plus £80/MWh for when there's no wind. Which is pretty much what happened and as we wasted billions on windmills, we increased our dependency on gas. Then came some very odd, very low bids for offshore capacity in the UK and US. This allowed industry lobby groups like IRENA and the Bbc to claim wind is now the cheapest ever, and revise their LCOE tables to around £50MWh. And then we decided to sanction gas & oil, blow up a pipeline, and relatively speaking, wind appeared even cheaper! Except of course windmill operators got paid the gas price.
But then stuff like this happened-
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/vattenfall-halts-project-warns-uk-offshore-wind-targets-doubt-2023-07-20/
The project won a contract-for-difference (CfD) in a British auction last year, guaranteeing a minimum price of 37.35 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) in 2012 prices for the electricity produced, which equates to around 45 pounds/MWh today. Helene Bistrom, Vattenfall's wind business head, said the incentives offered no longer reflected the current market conditions.
Perhaps you can explain how this could possibly be, when your industry keeps telling us how cheap wind is, and how it's costs are continually falling? Far cheaper than that nasty nuclear, coal, gas etc that China, India and even Germany is building.
What you see on your bill is a consumption multiplied by a price.
No, you don't say? So given IRENA's cheap and mature, why are there so many green subsidies and taxes added to my bill? Wind turbines have been around for over 150yrs in the UK, the industry is making billions, so it can afford it's own R&D etc without dipping it's hand in our pockets.
That back-up does not produce anything when it's not needed. So, its impact on the production costs is reduced. No gas is burnt when it's in standby. Sorry to have to state the obvious.
Sorry to have to state the obvious but the back-up is still a cost. But you don't understand costs, do you? Nor would you understand the role reversal, ie if CCGT is £80/MWh, and Offshore is £134/MWh, why is the cheapest generation source the backup and not the primary..
The community benefits from the fight against climat4e change.
And how exactly do they do this? I realised downwind of windmills tends to be colder and drier due to vertical mixing of the boundary layer. This is, of course another of the ways they harm the environment. But perhaps you can give an example of one of your 'o' functions. How many GW of windmills will it take to prevent 0.1C globabl warming? Oh, and have you noticed that right after our supposedly record warm March, it's been a rather un-warm April?
Not sure whether solar panel wastes will need to be monitored for thousands of years.
Not suprising you're thoroughly ignorant about this as well. So chuck thousands of solar panels that have been damaged by hailstones in a hole in the ground. Would you want, or need to monitor that hole for stuff like cadmium leaking into the groundwater?
At least I'm now back to being entertained. Usually climate 'debates' have ecofreaks like you ranting at oil industry shills. Now I've found a real, live and incredibly dumb renewables shill, and astroturfer given the anonymong status. Luckily in a few months when 'misinformation' laws are fully enacted, spreading your kind of misinformation will be illegal and punishable with jail. If Scotland thought they're having fun with their new law, the UK ain't seen nothing yet.
Yet LCOE figures show that wind and solar have became the cheapest forms of electricity generation (cheaper even than legacy coal, oil and gas generation). src IRENA 2022.. Please note that I'm adding supporting evidence to my claims.
Please note you are citing International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Please note you are citing Levelised Costs. Please note you are spinning harder than a windmill in a hurricane.
Furthermore, please note the extremeley obvious. If your IRENA garbage was accurate, our energy costs would be falling, not rising. This is because you're lying, again. LCOE excludes a whole bunch of very important and expensive costs. Like interconnection, reliabilit, and of course batteries. So your 15MW windmill needs at least 7MW of back-up capacity for when the blocking high pressure system due in the next few days arrives.
So ultimately the community benefits from these windfalls. That's pure logic. And the exact opposite of what you're claiming.
No. Once again you cannot tell the difference between evidence and opinion. This is the kind of community benefit people get from windmills-
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2024/04/12/council-secures-court-order-prohibiting-further-development-at-wind-farm-where-bog-slide-occurred/
Donegal County Council has secured a High Court order prohibiting further development of a wind farm at a site that was the subject of a large bog slide that had “significant environmental consequences”.
or
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2024/04/15/wed-never-have-moved-here-if-we-knew-more-turbines-were-coming/
In summer last year they moved into their perfect home, a converted former church, and began settling into their new community.
Just four months later they learned of the large wind farm developments that could dominate their rural horizon.
The area is already home to 77 turbines with potentially another 54 coming to almost encircle their home.
or
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2024/04/16/offshore-wind-farms-are-detrimental-to-whales/
Interestingly, the drastic spike in whale deaths along the U.S. East Coast began exactly when offshore wind farm companies began using geotechnical and site characterization surveys in this region of the Atlantic Ocean.
This is because floating offshore will be free to fetch the wind where it is (and therefore achieve much higher capacity factors than already good 60% - Chile developers (with virtually no continental shelf and very strong winds) envision >70% capacity factors)
Uhuh. So I'll believe that when I see it. But not wrong, just not proven. There have been various forecasts for just how incredibly expensive floating windmills of any significant power will be because of, y'know, physics. Plus plenty of experience trying to keep floating offshore oil platforms floating.
However, new and more promising technologies need to be promoted in order to successfully displace established, but obsolete, inefficient, risky and polluting technologies, such as nuclear energy or coal. This is how solar and now wind power gradually gained market share and recognition, evolving from outsiders to mainstream industries.
You certainly have a very.. interesting outlook on life. Well, you're paid to I guess. Windmills are a thousand year old technology that were obsoleted by steam. They've had a resurgence thanks to liars like you and regulatory capture. Windmills and solar have been far more polluting than nuclear, are far riskier and are far less efficient. Not to mention have a far smaller environmental impact.
Yet neo-luddites like you still lie, and spin for wind.
1/ You don't seem to understand that one of the goals of CfDs is to give financial visibility to prospective low-carbon energy developers.
CfDs were designed to subsidise otherwise non-viable forms of generation, ie ones that could not and would not be competitive otherwise. I keep telling you this. There is no 'community' good, or 'sharing' of windfalls with consumers.
It's probably also the reason your 15MW prototype isn't in service. 8760 hours in a year multiplied by strike price gives you it's potential revenue. If it's CF is only 50%, that makes it worse. If material costs go up, that makes it worse. You should know this, even if you've been unclear what what CF is.
2/ CfDs and strike prices are two different things. CfDs are contracts, strike prices are per-contract value entities. The CfD figures you base all your argumentation on are auction price CEILINGS
Again, you combine elements of truth to create a falsehood. CfD is the contract, strike price is the contract rate. The CfDs I base my argumentation on are not auction price ceilings, those only exist during the auction. So previous auction rounds wind farmers bid below cost, and made lots of publicity about that, ie £50/MWh. They can't deliver on those contracts and want to rebid at £120+. The last auction round had a ceiling for offshore wind and no bidders, because of rising costs. Yet the 'renewables' sc.. industry keeps telling us about falling costs.
Then there's novel new tech like floating windmillls, yours for only £200+ MWh. As that's way over market price for electricity, why do it? Come back when costs are down to £30-40.
3/ The LCCC is funded by a levy on distributors, so ultimately this derisking mechanism is funded by the community. It's a win-win situation that benefits everybody.
No, it's a cost forced on consumers to subsidise and enrich the wind industry. They are the only people to benefit. This should be obvious by the way energy costs are forcing other businesses into bankruptcy and people into energy poverty. And coming soon, 'surge' pricing, enabled by another multi-billion boondoggle, 'smart meters'. And all because we've wasted billions on unreliable and intermittent power sources.
Again, why are you so incredibly dishonest, as well as a giant troll?
The wiki link is pretty clear. If you think it's wrong, you can always go edit it. You may find editing the LCC or Ofgems version harderthough-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_for_difference#CFDs_difference_from_FTR
This requires generators to pay money back when wholesale electricity prices are higher than the strike price, and provides financial support when the wholesale electricity prices are lower.
The costs of the CfD scheme are funded by a statutory levy on all UK-based licensed electricity suppliers (known as the ‘Supplier Obligation’), which is passed on to consumers.
Market prices can absolutely exceed strike prices (in which case producers make a hefty margin, and it's only too fair that they compensate the community that supports them whem market prices are lower than their costs) but CfD values published by governments are maximum strike prices.
WTF are you blithering on about? If the market price exceeds the strike price, the renewables scumbags just get paid even more of a windfall. There is nothing 'compensating the community' because the community will be paying the inflated marke or strike price. If however this does happen, the producer and government split the money over the strike price.
So, you can't cite CfDs to draw conclusions on market prices It's like claiming that you car's speed is always 160mph because the top mark of your speedometer is 160mph.
Again, wtf? I can cite CfD in relation to market prices because that's just how the rigged system works. Again market price is £30/MWh, CfD is £160/MWh, through the supplier obligation, we're forced to pay the extra £130. I guess it's like you driving at 30, but being fined for driving at 160 because that's what it says on your speedo.
I think this is the last time I'll bother pandering to such a moronic and abusive troll. El Reg's mods don't seem interested in dealing with the abusive and disruptive trolling and idiocy, I'll do the decent thing and not feed it.
- CfDs are prices (not costs). They're also maximum prices. The imaginary mechanism you describe, a positive feedback loop, would lead to ever increasing inflation.
If you but electricity, CfDs are your cost. They are not maximum prices, ie energy can sell for more than the strike price. Also-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_for_difference#CFDs_difference_from_FTR
This requires generators to pay money back when wholesale electricity prices are higher than the strike price, and provides financial support when the wholesale electricity prices are lower.
The costs of the CfD scheme are funded by a statutory levy on all UK-based licensed electricity suppliers (known as the ‘Supplier Obligation’), which is passed on to consumers.
So if the market price is £30/MWh, and the CfD price is £150/MWh, the 'Supplier Obligation' means we pay the difference, so an additional £120/MWh regardless of generation cost. And of course there is a positive feedback loop because again, those CfD contracts are indexed.
Now kindly FOAD, troll..
Maybe you missed that point but any price increase only applies to new investments. Unless genius JE proposes to apply price increase retrospectively to already procured equipment.
And just like that, the goal posts were moved again to highlight the ubertroll's idiocy.
If copper & aluminium price rises lead to higher inflation, then obviously I'm a 'genius' because I know that wind farmer's CfDs are indexed. So they automatically get increased by the inflation rate, even though the cost elements in the inflation rate applied aren't relevant, eg tobacco duty increasing inflation and thus energy costs.
Figured out why windmills get built on top of hills yet, and why that means their hubheight is often >200m? Figured out why nobody is buying Vestas's 15MW bird slicer?
As soon as you claim that your 23% load factor back-of-an-envelope calculation applies to all wind turbines, you bundle all national wind farms together: onshore (the vast majority) and offshore. And that's ridiculous. If you wish to contest Vesta's figure of 60%, you need to compare to similar (i.e. recent enough) offshore farms. Why do I always have to put you in front of the evidence, like a 4y old?
Because you tink like a 4yr old? But my 'back of the envelope' is the current reality. 30GW installed wind capacity, last years average 7GW. It's a very simple average capacity factor calculation. And you do know that capacity and load factors are different thiings, don't you? Then you take a marketing claim from Vestas from a single prototype 15MW windmill that seems to have been installed for just over a year. But I can't seem to find data for that winmill to find the average capacity factor.
But current 30GW would mean replacing the entire existing UK wind fleet with 2,000 of these 'new' windmills. That would cost rather a lot and produce an average 15GW, or the euqivalent of 5 or 6 NPPs. Those have a capacity factor of 95%+ and you don't have to worry about last year's wind minimum being : 0.071 GW, or a capacity factor of 0.23%.
Yeah load factors are usually calculated annually - because of seasonal variations.
Again you mean capacity factors, and I know this, and I keep telling you this. Yet you managed to cherry pick 1 days data where 1 single windmill may have managed a CF of 100%. Where is the graph showing min/max/average and output over the year? And previously you demanded your 'quantitative analysis' over 25yrs, demonstrating that you just don't get o either..
However, one of the funniest things is your insistance that off-shore only is the future. And 200m tall windmills are better cos they can reach those 'high altitude' winds. So riddle me this. Hub height of a windmill sitting offshore, say 200m. Obviously that's 200m above MSL. Then say, a 150m tall windmill sitting on top of a 200m high hill. Have you never noticed that windmills tend to be installed on high ground?
Do you mean price related? Whether they sell or not depends on their price, not their cost
Again, back to ubertroll mode. You can't really be this stupid, can you? Vestas cost increases due to higher copper and aluminium prices. That feeds into Vestas sell price, which becomes wind operators cost. If the Vestas price and operators cost are too high, Vestas doesn't sell anything and goes bust.
So, 4 posts later, you still claim that offshore and onshore load factors are similar. Now call me a troll to come full circle.
I call you a troll because you act like one. I've never made that claim, I simply questioned your 'quantitative analysis', and it's initial assumption that you could achieve 50% capacity factor over 1yr, let alone 25.
NB: that's a 100% load factor on that period, Genius.
in 24 hours, genius. But if these windmills are so great, why aren't they flying off the shelves instead of AFAIK there only being a single prototype in operation. Could it be.. I dunno, cost related?
THe real q is how do you know the russian nukes actually work ?
The real question is do we want to keep poking the bear until we find out? Russia's already flown it's RS-28 Sarmat, and Ukraine is showing us our Patriots and other theatre defence missiles aren't very good at intercepting the latest Russian missiles, or even older models they were designed to intercept.
its hard to really guarantee anything complex like a military plane actually does half the things it pretends to claim.
Or it does, and it becomes a nasty suprise. We're already discovering this with Russia's hypersonic shovels, recycled washing machines and the speed with which it's enhancing and utilising drones. And of course we've pushed Russia and China even closer for technology transfer and joint developments. Neocons fantasise about invading places like China, but they're a long way from the US and it would be rather challenging to do this if your carriers and transports are sunk.
No issue: all JE has to do to preserve JE's self esteem is claim that JE is right. Cool. Keep it up.
Hopefully you'll have no issue. But you stil can't seem to reconcile your claim of a 50% capacity factor taken from a marketing doc with the observed reality of real-world windmills achieving a capacity factor of 23%, or sometimes even less. Evidence, and critical thinking has never been your strong point. But as you're the 'expert', where have these 15MW windmills been installed?
Insisting on mixing onshore and offshore load factors for a 15MW wind turbine that can only be offshore
Why can it 'only be offshore'? I don't know if there are planning regs that mean structures >200m can't be built on land. But if a windmill is capable of supporting itself on the sea bed, why would you think it incapable of doing the same on land? And I'm not mixing capacity factors of theoretical installs. I keep pointing you to actual data showing the average last year for all wind (trackable by Gridwatch) is only 23%. But for years the 'renewables' scumbags have told us that windmills will get bigger, faster and cheaper, and yet our electricity costs continue to climb.
...adding more nonsense
Projecting again. You're almost as good as Samantha Powers who said with a straight face that Urkraine's economy had grown by 5%..
yes so little seascape around the British Isles) and more denial ("vendor flyer", "industry lobbying" ) as they go along. Adding ridicule to mockery.
Well, given your posts, you open yourself up to both ridicule and mockery. But I presume you think both the sea bed and Earth are flat? Consistent in geology so you can drill pilings and build stable foundatons? I haven't read Vestas's marketing buff, but have you? Given actual capacity factor is dependent on location, I'd be pretty sure their '50%' claim is heavily caveated. But again pretty much irrelevant given the observable 23% actual performance.
Your obsession with "inflation" suggests you're living on a shoe string budget, This might act as a warped lens. Yet, facts are facts; willfully distorting them only harms the distorter.
Again, assumptions without evidence. Or I might be concerned for others, like the millions living in energy poverty so the distorters can buy themselves a castle and football club. It might eventually harm the distorter, but sadly many of the merchants of doom are making a lot of money faking weather data to claim global warming.
1/ the need for energy in bauxite reduction is part of the capex from equipment vendor's perspective (and therefore a little-o function down the supply chain of energy production)
Your function would be more like the cost of energy, bauxite, wages, regulatory costs, all of which are inflating in non-Russian aluminium production far faster than they are in Russia. That's one multi-variate set of functions to try and calculate requiring a lot of assumptions and a lot of uncertainty if you're trying to produce a cost model forward 25yrs.
Here's a clue for you though-
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/aluminum-price
or
https://www.lme.com/Metals/Non-ferrous/LME-Aluminium#Summary
and copper's declined on LME, probably because a lot of contracts can't be traded there any more. That would require another set of functions. Then, you'd need to know how much copper and aluminium goes into your 15MW windmill, along with every other variable that affects your business's capex and opex. And then you'd want to forecast, and include all the possible variables that affect your market. Like because your costs are going up, you can't sell your product. Especially if the regulatory environment changes and subsidies are removed because you've spent the last few decades telling everyone your costs are falling. Then telling people you're abandoning projects because, well, costs have been increasing. Oops, but again this is why if you use the wrong tool for the job, you'll just get the wrong answer. Then for energy output, that could be zero, if nobody buys your windmills and you go broke.
Just to be absolutely clear though, are you saying that when costs increase, prices don't?
2/ This energy is becoming greener and cheaper as the global Energiewende progresses.
Citation needed. My electricty bill is still around 3x what it was a decade ago. Again this is where your fantasy collides with reality.
You've just be proved wrong again. Prediction: you will keep on digging in.
You cited a marketing flyer from a vendor desperately trying to flog windmills. The reality is in the data from sites like Gridwatch where 30GW installed capacity resulted in a 23% capacity factor last year. This is well known that very few installs get anywhere close to 50%.
"Larger turbines are expected to produce higher load factors for several reasons, most importantly that larger turbines can access higher winds due to their increased height, and that a wind farm with fewer, larger turbines has increased efficiency,"
More forward looking statements from an industry lobbying group. Emphasis obviously on 'expected'. They might, they might not. There is very little data. There's also the problem of the increased cost, and the cost of replacing smaller windmills. Especially as most of the good sites are already taken. And they could be installed on land, except for a few expensive details like getting all the tower sections and blades to the install location. Naturally the 'renewables' lobby is pushing for this because after all, they won't be in their back yards.
But other than demonstrating your detachment from reality, what does this have to do with Chinese telcos? Other than maybe your windmill's SCADA costs will also increase because you're not allowed to use cheap Chinese kit anymore.
Let's summarize...Loads of incredibly dumb rants as usual:
See? You're projecting again!
- Made up sick pro-Russia propaganda repeated ad nauseam with the goal of justifying the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Not at all. But again, demonstrates the way you prefer propaganda to evidence. Urkraine used Minsk to train and build up it's military after the mauling it got during it's civil war. It passed a law to recapture DPR, LPR and Crimea. It started massing it's newely NATO-standard forces in those regions in preparation for that offensive. Russia warned them not to start their ethnic cleansing operations, we ignored Russia's warnings so when the SMO started, it threatened Kiev to draw forces away. And that worked, and there was almost a peace deal until we decide Ukrainians must die. And recent events demonstrate Ukraine's place in the world. US, UK and others use actively engage to defend Israel. Meanwhile, Ukraine carries on begging for more air defences. Now the Middle East is heating up, what are the chances anyone with SAMs is going to donate those to Urkaine? It's an 'illegal invasion' in the same way our invasions of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc etc were.
- Little-o notation was invented way before computers were a thing. So bad google look up.
Nope. It sounded familiar so I looked it up on Wiki. Then shivered because formal methods. Which I was forced to learn as part of designing safety critical systems. But as that was part of an engineering degree, it also included the importance of using the right tools for the job. Not being lead astray by using the wrong tools. See Rahmstorf Smoothing for more info.
- FYI, wind turbine motors use copper. Power lines use aluminum alloys. No need to draw on your 70s memories. You learn something everyday. Even going your way, Aluminum is more abundant than Iron. </blockquote?Uhuh. So what you're saying is that although we use and need an awful lot of copper, sanctions that impose additional costs and maybe reduce supply will have absolutely no impact on your business case? And yes, I know aluminium is common, but it's also known as congealed electricty because production and refining is extremely energy intensive. If energy costs increase due to insane energy policy, costs increase, prices increase, inflation increases and sanctions just accelerate those effects.
<blockqoute>And yes, maybe that's news for you but offshore farms, especially UK, like Hywind Scotland, often have load factors around or above 50%
And here we have the classic cherry pick. One wind farm for one season is not representative. I used last years average figures from here-
https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind
and a claim for total installed wind capacity in the UK from wiki. But this is how the climate 'science' world rolls. The Met Office recenly claimed a record wind interval over 18 months! Like that's not unexpected when you cherrypick a period that includes two Winters.
15MW is obviously not onshore. It's the kind of >200m high wind turbine that you would deploy today in offshore farms
Except they're not, because they use even more copper and are too expensive. Plus there's novel approaches to physics, like suggesting slapping 200m high windmills on floating platforms. What would physics tell you about a moving mass on the end of a long lever, attached to an unstable platform that offers very little resistance to the forces that will be generated? But if you can lock in >£200/MWh CfD strike prices, you might, just might be able to make some money flogging REGOs to other businesses that might want to greenwash theirs.
Yes, Taiwan is threatening to invade China. Just as evil Ukraine invaded Russia.
Urkraine had been killing ethnic Russians since 2014, and was poised to attack the DPR and LPR, and do a bit of a Gaza. The Friendship agreement between Urkraine and Russia had been abandoned by Poroshenko and so the SMO began to prevent ethnic cleansing. The same justification we used to break up Yugoslavia. And of course we've repeatedly stated our desire to break up the Russia Federation so we can loot it.
Like China is an open market for Western companies!! If you want to do business in China, you have to agree to "share" your technology. But technology sharing is one way only.
Yep. Ukraine wants to join the EU, if it does, it'll have to agree to a long list of rules. China has a long history of trading with the US and Europe, often at gunpointed, or helped along with a bit of opium.
Easy: exploiting millions of rural workers coming to town and skipping R&D budgets.
That's especially dumb, even by your standards. China's been investing a LOT in it's education system and R&D. We've been convincing our kids that leaving college with a $200-300k debt and a degree in gender or environment studies was a good investment. Plus a lot of Asian countries value education far more than we do where our education system churns out kids who are illiterate or innumerate. I suspect you're a good example of this problem.
Quantitative analysis is not your forte. Exercise for you: evaluate the impact of a doubling of the price of copper and aluminum on the cost of a MWh produced by a 15MW wind turbine with 50% annual load factor running for 25 years
This is why some comp.sci guys shouldn't be allowed out into the real world unsupervised. So per wiki-
In computer science, big O notation is used to classify algorithms according to how their run time or space requirements grow as the input size grows.
See also assumptions made wrt to CO2 and temperature where there are no limits to growth. Or just the way you create an unrealistic strawman by your assumptions. Show me a 15MW wind turbine that achieves a 50% annual load factor? As usual, your reality and actual reality diverge. So last year the UK had around 30GW of windmills and an average production of only 7GW. From a quick quantitative analysis, that's less than half your assumed load factor. But again normal for climate 'science', and it's peddlers of bullshit.
But your modelling overlooks a few rather important issues. One is we've been here before in the '70s when there was a copper crisis. So for telecoms, that meant switching to aluminium cables due to cost. Now, we're sanctioning both. Then it's understanding how much copper and alumininium there is in a windmill, gas turbine, EV, cable or grid-scale battery. We've already had large windmill farmers telling us that their costs are rising, not falling as they'd promised us they would. And we've seen those big wind farmers pulling out of projects because they're uneconomic at <£120+ per MWh.
But again that's a problem with your extremely crude model, along with a general lack of understanding about pretty much anything to do with economics. So interest rates have risen, mostly on the back of inflation in the energy sector. You're a prospective wind farmer seeking to generate new subsidies. You go to your investors and say 'giff money!' and show them your model with your 50% capacity factor. At which point, your investor's quants will point and laugh at you because your assumptions are wildly inaccurate, and your capex has just increased. And of course there's substantial political uncertainty that the situation won't get worse with more sanctions, variations to subsidies, customer resistance, fraud trials. Or just 'Climate Change'. After all, one of the predictions for that is a warmer world will lead to lower average wind speeds. The IPCC has written all about that. Plus 'extreme weather', which might just damage or destroy their investment.
Good luck cloning silicon valley, or Biotech from Basel valley without a truly democratic meritocracy oriented politico-economic environment.
Huh? You mean a 'democratic meritocracy' that gave us DEI and ESG? Plus a crapton of other red tape that simply imposes costs and inefficiencies on Western businesses? There are a number of advantages to a benevolent-ish dictatorship, namely you can JFDI. At gun point, if necessary. China's building on stuff we've already developed. It's investing in it's future, ie education system and research. We're wasting billions on ways to go back to a pre-Industrial era. But that was one of the key points behind the 'Global Warming' scam, so how do we slow down countries like China and India? Luckily for them, they've mostly been ignoring that nonsense and are steadily eating our lunch while we deindustrialise.
...are now complaining that they're being left behind in Gen AI (yes, you need clean sources of data for LLM training).
Hmm.. Let me think for a second. Who's likely to have a harder time finding 'clean sources' of say, Chinese data? That rapidly developing market? Or why LLM would really be of interest to China given it's got a very large market of natural language speakers, along with a strong service mentality? And if it wants English language training data, there's rather a lot of that already floating around on the Internet. Oh, and given China's 'liberal' approach to copyright, what happens to the cost base of Western AI developers, if they have to start paying for their training data?
It is going to hit hard companies like Cisco. AMD and Intel will be affected, losing sales, but won't be hard hit.
I think they will. But the telco space is interesting. Cisco is the 800lb gorilla, but doesn't play in every space. So it's got very little market share in optical/transmission and companies like Infinera or Huawei have/had more dominance in that space. Especially as Cisco started shifting towards serialising 'commodities' like SFPs, and making device management a lot more complicated and expensive. Quite a few telcos also realised they didn't really need to be locked into Cisco or Juniper's ecosytem, and a lot of their BFRs were expensive bloatware. Especially as the world steadily shifted towards Ethernet as the one true transport.. Or GMPLS. Why waste money on a 'router' that only has 2 interfaces and often only 1 route? NIDS are a lot simpler and cheaper when they're just forwarding traffic based on a lable.
Then routing often only needs to happen in a few locations, and can be virtualised. Sure, for some tasks that might not be as fast as a BFR, but it's a whole lot cheaper, especially when you're just running a bunch of VRFs. First big telco I noticed doing this was Deutsche Telecom who'd sarted doing this in the early 2000s, and good'ol Demon Internet had been using *nix boxes and gated for routing long before that. Box shifters aren't happy about this migration, neither are some customers. I was once called to an irate customer who wanted to reject an Ethernet connection. We'd provisioned it to their ODF and patch panel. Customer pointed to a 3U box COLT supplied as part of their Ethernet delivery, and wanted a box like that! So I had to point out that we didn't really need to spend $20k on a bunch of tin we didn't need to provide the service and SLA they'd ordered.. And that also made the service cheaper, and more reliable given there's no box to fail.
But there are other players who might be affected by geopolitics, like ECI or Adva. One's Israeli, the other is German. China already makes and supplies competing products and they're often the kind of devices sold by the thousand and often at a fraction of the price Western vendors want to charge.
Looks like China is considering going to war with the us after 3/4 years, and they obviously can't do that with us made processors and sw everywhere.
I think you have that the wrong way round. Most of the agressive posturing is coming from us, not China. Much of that is geopolitical combined with blatant protectionism. China's been developing very quickly from supplying cheap soft toys to high-tech kit that's often better, faster and especially cheaper than the stuff we make and sell. Sanctions have so far been spectacularly backfiring. Or perhaps not. The latest stroke of genius from our dear leaders is trying to ban Russian copper and aluminium. US said 'Ban it', Sunak went 'OK Boss!'. US imported very little from Russia, the EU and UK a whole lot more. We're currently following an insane energy policy that's going to need a lot of upgrades, needing a lot of copper and aluminium, and we've just made that stuff even more expensive. I'm sure that will help inflation, and ensuring the EU & UK remain competitive.. somehow.
Meanwhile, China's just doing what happens every time sanctions and protectionism kick in. So steadily increasing it's self-sufficiency and finding more amenable trading partners. Especially as we've now forced a manufacturing powerhouse into closer ties with a resource one. And most of the world is mostly ignoring the sanctions anyway.
Which reads data from the meter's local network, and connects over your home broadband to the supplier.
Octopus tried to flog me this. I told them there would be a £10/day standing charge for the use of my broadband and creation of a dedicated DMZ for their service. They hung up.
Yes so basically if you don't buy into the EV/PV subsidy game, then there is zero reason to want a smart meter ...
Or try to game the system-
https://www.scottishpower.co.uk/electric-vehicle/tou-tariff
Charge your EV at a lower rate of 7.450p per kWh between midnight and 5am**.
which seems to be quite a bit cheaper than their Economy 7 rate.
Also the first thing I thought of. Though wasn't there something similar in Stainless Steel Rat as well?
Not sure, but I did remember the dog-things in Snowcrash were called rat-things..Still dog-like and perfect for guarding.
Thinks: Not read that since the 80s. Wonder if I'd still enjoy it if I found a copy?
Well.. noticed I do have an omnibus/trilogy on my shelf, have nearly finished the current book I'm reading and may give that a go. Not read it in years
Guessing they may be working on the assumption that SMRs become a thing. But even then it'd need a few for both resilience and simply provide 750MW. If it's near the coast though, cooling should be more doable, if they can overcome objections to the 'n' word. But Blackstone has been very good at buying influence.
With the main "American" EV manufacturer, Tesla, facing "disastrous" sales and decimating its workforce is the world finally waking up to the issue of EVs being unsustainable hype?
Details, details. US complains about China subsidising EVs. US, UK and EU subsidise EVs in the same way with tax credits, EV credits and Tesla would have gone titsup.com long ago if it wasn't for those. Now Tesla's facing more competition, which should also result in falling EV credit sales to competitors, and it still can't compete with China or India because our cost base is simply too high.
Was it wise running federal agencies on the one centralized email system. As when one gets compromised, they all get compromised.
But MS is all about sharing. Federate, share your work easily. Throw everything into the cloud. Trust in MS!
Affected federal agencies must comb through mails, reset API keys and passwords
Oops. I've reset the API keys and am now mailing the new ones to all users. Hopefully proper government still has cryptocustodians who get to fly around the world hand-delivering stuff that can't be trusted to be sent electronically. Or if it is, it's with multiple layers of encryption.
Nobody's thought about what happens to the energy supplied to the datacentres. Rather than vent it to the atmosphere as low grade heat, how about building them in residential or commercial areas, concentrate it and resell it to the neighbours?
They have, and there have been a few proposals to use 'waste' heat from DCs for district heating. But the the problem is as you say, it's low grade. So needs more energy to heat it up, or you end up with a tepid water supply and a huge cost to build the infrastructure to distribute that heat. If it's a new build, like famously NYC, it might make sense, but developers aren't interested usually.
...which would be a disaster for everyone except Russia.
Except it's a Russian built and controlled NPP sitting on Russian claimed territory. But this is the logic I'd expect when Russia is clearly winning this conflict. And Urkraine has given us the Goats of Kiev, the Heroes of Snake Island. And also according to it's WLB, Urkraine started the SMO with 1m troops, has gone through several rounds of mobilisation, has only lost 31k troops, and now needs to find another 500,000 recruits. Oh, and of course another $61bn, and everyone must given him Patriots, jets, missiles and whatever else the WLB demands. Oh, and of course give money to build targets.. I mean weapons manufacturing in Urkraine, which will be staffed by.. more ghosts? Ukraine's Pravda ran a story about the 1m+ people of fighting age who've fled the country and partying elsewhere, including ones like Klitchko's kids who are now apparently German citizens.
But that's politics for you. The fortunate sons and daughters get to party in safety, the Ukrainians who might be factory workers get sent to the frontlines to die. And 'Lord' Cameron just told American that this is good because America's fighting and killing Russians without losing a single soldier. Which along with demonstrating Cameron's morality, is also probably a lie given Americans have also been killed.
Is that I am told the UK's electricity demand has apparently dropped significantly in recent years.
I found this graph, and possible explanation-
https://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-generation-statistics-1920-2012/
So, what is going on? It can't just be lightbulbs.. I suppose a lot of heavy industry has closed down, people with electric heating have moved to gas, and maybe we are drinking less tea? And the transition to EVs HPs and EAFs hasn't really kicked in yet.
Euan suggests-
2003 – 2012 saw electricity demand plateau and then fall significantly. The beginning of this process coincides with the beginning of the bull run in energy prices. While energy efficiency gains may account for part of the fall in demand, high energy prices, fuel poverty and double dip recession are the principle causes.
Which sounds plausible. Electricity costs start to climb, and we start to de-industrialise and switch focus to a service economy, as well as the 'dash for gas' for domestic and commercial heating. The biggest challenge is as you say, reversing that as we continue to decarbonise and deindustrialise along with massively increasing the demand for cheap, reliable electricity.
Surprise, surprise, Jellied Eel has..
A sense of humor, unlike an anonymong troll? I suspect veges and vegans taste more like pork though. Still a potentially valuable source of protein. Rest is just an insane policy thing. Ecofreaks are trying to ban meat. Replacing meat with a plant-based diet means growing more veggies. Doing that requires more fertilsers, pesticides and herbicides which all require energy. In other genius moves, we're covering potential farmland in solar panels because they can generate £1,000 an acre, and food doesn't. And trying to grow crops in the shadows under solar panels isn't exactly efficient.
Then there's the energy requirements to grow fake meat, raise insects, or create 'vertical farms' with crops grown under artificial lighting. So almost certainly more joules in than calories out, and of course the water needed. We're not exactly very efficient at digesting cellulose (or keratin and chitin) hence why we let our meat do that. And then there's the issue of food waste, so what to do with all the bits of a plant that we can't eat. Can't use them as animal feed, can't put them in other digestors to convert to methane because the eco-freaks want to ban that..
Maybe an 'AI' can figure what to do, and waste more energy telling us stuff we already know after a few thousand years of agriculture. Or maybe the eco-facists will just 'train' the AIs the same way they do climate 'models' to give them the answers they want.
Firstly just to point out that it was the Russians shelling the plant back when they took control in 2022.
Citation needed. There have been various claims made, but also plenty of evidence that Ukraine has shelled and launched raids against the ZPP and support infrastructure over the course of the SMO. They've even attempted to justify it by claiming that because there are Russian defenders there, it's somehow a legitimate target. Plus Zelensky isn't really in control of his armed forces and there are a bunch of independent militias doing their own thing. It's a mess.
Either way that's a bit off topic - the original point is the structural integrity of the reactors, and would it be risky to have a data center close by.
I don't think it would be that risky. If there's ever a time when say, Russia, or even France starts yeeting ballistic missiles at Slough, then we're basically at war. An inability to produce powerpoints would be the least of our problems. A bigger risk would be idiots (aka terrorists) yeeting drones at them. Then the payload is a lot smaller and even if they hit a datacentre, probably wouldn't do that much damage. In the event of a reactor leak though, radiation would have to leave the building, and a metal clad bit barn would be adequate shielding. Then it's just operating in an exclusion zone, like Chernobyl where plenty of people work already. Get a badge, get your work done in say, <4hrs and it's all good.
First note, while the plant was definitely shelled, I'm not so sure if there were any direct hits on the reactors themselves (although I believe I might have seen some grainy video of such, but that's 2 years ago already...). Secondly, the reactor housing of reinforced concrete is designed to withstand a light aircraft crashing into it. It can certainly withstand a drone. I would certainly feel safer close to a nuclear plant than an oil-fired one with a million-gallon oil store.
Yep, see Buncefield and the impact on a DC that was close to the POL stores there. The drone strikes on the ZPP reactor have been confirmed by the IAEA though, along with minimal damage. But it's one of those issues that government needs to consider. DC's consume huge amounts of power. SMRs are a logical solution to generating that power, so it makes sense to collocate those. Give or take inevitable planning objections by the neo-luddites. Then it's a case of minimum containment standards for the buildings housing those SMRs. They're all designed to fail-safe anyway.
And it's not like 'renewables' aren't also potential hazards and targets. Grid-scale batteries catch fire on their own. That could be helped along by idiots with drones and fragmentation warheads. The battery packs aren't armoured, only weatherproofed. Then when they burn, they produce a lot of toxic chemicals like HF and heavy metal smoke that could directly harm via inhalation, or pose long-term risks by contaminating soil and water supplies. It's much the same with solar panels, especially disposing of those.
But see also-
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/huge-fire-scots-battery-recycling-32542332
where residents were warned to seal their homes or evacuate due to the toxic smoke. How Green.
As to military conflict, they are also very highly reinforced. Zapowhatevernaya (spelling??) in Ukraine has been shelled and rocketed a few times - certainly not ideal, of course, but it's kept structural integrity.
I just call that one ZPP to preserve my sanity. Plus it's a rather different design with a lot less containment building than our designs. Plus the drones Ukraine have been yeeting at it have a relatively small payload. And luckily whoever's programming their Stormshadows and similar haven't been letting the Ukranians lob one of those at the ZPP.. yet. However, this could be another good reason to build DCs around an NPP and provide a bit of an obstacle course for drones. I guess they'd also provide some additional shielding from any direct radiation exposure in the event of a breach in containment.
Have I been using ad-homs against you? I'm not aerogems!
The problem with ACs is after a while, they all start to look alike. Aerogums at least tends to post using their name, so easier to attribute, but I also have a stalker anonymong who likes to play tricks, like probably downvoting aero. But their posting style is usually to cherry pick & misquote. So apologies if I confused you with that anonymong. But..
Having worked with such vision systems they are generally crap. Even on my last project before moving career we were using PAL or NTSC resolution cameras and that was only a couple of years ago. The civilian sector embraced HD and better very quickly.
Yup. Take a 1970's AH-64 using tech around at that time. Upgrade it to AH-64D in 1995 using 1990s tech. The optics and imaging are ok, but they're not exactly 4K. Especially in other modes like thermal. But again, it's also why I lost trust in Wikileaks and especially Assange for editorialising and shaping the narrative. Manning stole the video, Assange 'leaked' it, but an edited and degraded version. He claimed to leak info obtained pretty much as-is, but if it's been manipulated, why trust it?
Assange initially denied altering it. But Manning stole the video from a classifed server. Why would DoD store degraded video when it's users would have clearanance and know what Apache gun cam video should look like. But that fit the narrative, ie US killing 'unarmed' civilians and the whole 'Collateral Murder' thing. Which ironically came from an incident where the AH-64s fired Hellfires into a building, which wasn't in the original cut.
But the neither was the context. So shortly before the video, a US patrol had been attacked with RPGs and automatic weapons. So naturally the US was looking for those attackers. The helicopters found an armed group carrying an RPG and RPK, leaving the scene of the earlier attack.. Which is where the video story begins. Degrading the video makes it harder to identify those weapons, but they were clearly visible, if you knew what you were looking at. I remember the RPG, and pretty distinctive RPG ammo vest. I'm also pretty sure one was carrying an RPK because that also has a pretty distinctive profile given the length, and bipod attached to the barrel.
Blurring out those details obviously makes it easier to push the 'unarmed' narrative. But the short video also edits out where ground forces arrive, and report being shot at from the building that was later attacked with missiles. That was also corroborated by a journalist embedded with those troops. Then the US released footage showing more clearly what happened, which was perhaps too slow. And of course investigators found weapons including RPG had been recovered at the scene.
Despite much being written about this incident since 2007, many people still believe Assange's version that the US killed unarmed civilians though, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Sure, some elements are more debateable. The deaths of the Reuter's team was unfortunate, but war happens. But so does propaganda, ie shooting up the recovery vehicle. The bad guys also do propaganda and recover bodies and weapons to push their own narratives that the US kills 'unarmed' civilians.
But so it goes. The media still pushes a lot of obvious propaganda, eg this example from the Bbc today-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68778338
Ukraine has been defending itself against Russia's full-scale invasion for two years
There has never been a 'full-scale' invasion. Russia's only committed a small part of it's available forces, and is limited in what it can commit by it's constitution unless it declares war. So it started the SMO with around 2-300k troops vs Ukraine's much hyped 'million man, NATO trained and equipped army'. The SMO opened with a show of force, not any serious attempt to take Kiev. That almost worked and there was almost a peace deal, but then Butcher Boris flew in and now thousands of Ukrainians are dead or maimed. What a guy! Our 'leaders' are making a ton of money though, so it's all good.
Come on JE, I thought you were better than going for the ad-homs :)
Anonymong troll isn't an ad-hom, it's an accurate description of someone who only seems to exist to throw ad-homs in my direction from the cover of anonymity. Thus making it obviously harder for others to follow along when there are multiple ACs, some contributing useful stuff, unlike you..
The crew asked for permission to engage and got the OK based on 'seeing' people carrying AK47s. Its in the video. The supposed AKs were not being pointed at anyone. The claim of the RPG being pointed at them came after they'd got permission to go on a shooting spree.
They requested, and were granted authorisation to engage what appeared to be armed suspects. This is one of those awful but lawful situations. If they're armed, or appear to be armed in a conflict zone, they're no longer granted the same protections as civilians and can be engaged without warning. And yes, the claim of the RPG came after they saw RPG, then saw it apperenly being pointed at them. Hence the 'RPG.. RPG' call and the pilot banking right to break line of sight.
The guy with the supposed RPG has it sat on the ground and he is leaning on it. In the video it looks more like he is carrying a tripod. Just a bunch of people wandering around the street. No pointing of guns. The vast majority of them, if not all, look unarmed.
Again one of the issues with the 'Collateral Murder' video. The image quality is degraded, we're not seeing what the pilot or gunner was seeing. The US later released an official version that clearly showed an RPG, and RPK and someone carrying a grenade pouch for the RPG. And no, don't ask me to link that because I can't find it. But to quote from Wiki-
Assange later said "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything"
Actually it means a lot, but didn't stop Assange hyping his movie and making money from it.
And when the shot up the van there were no weapons visible while the people were picking up the body.
Yep, although the first 'body' picked up was the person who had been crawling. That part I think was questionable given ground forces were closing in so the Apache could have just observed and engaged if necessary.
They just wanted to go shoot up some eye-rakkis. And people wonder why the people in the middle east have a general hatred for the US and its close allies...
Now you're getting it. We bomb schools, hospitals, wedding parties and it's an 'Oops', we'll try not to do that again. Israel's blowing up most of Gaza, and we're giving them more bombs. Ukraine has been shelling civilians since 2014, and we'll arm them 'for as long as it takes'. This hypocrisy is why the West is losing support. It's also a strange evolution. Blurry videos from Iraq in 2007, 4k footage from drones and soldiers in Ukraine. Many of those end up on 'social' media where they provide clear documentary evidence of war crimes. But they can be monetised, and don't forget to like and subscribe..
You can see the difference between a potential RPG in the first and second pic and a much shorter thicker camera lens in the last pic.
Once again, the anonymong troll misses you point.
You might be able to see the difference in a cherry picked frame, safe in the comfort of your basement. You are not flying in a helicopter, over a conflict zone, trying to reacquire potential hostiles carrying weapons that could give you a really bad day.
Both sides were armed with AKs and RPGs so you can't just pop a cap in anyone carrying one of those weapons
Actually, you can. One of the primary rules of weapons safety is you don't point weapons at people unless you mean to do them harm. Friendly forces wouldn't be flagging an attack helicopter with an RPG. If it was an RPG, the gunner or pilot would have a split second decision to engage, hopefully before the suspected RPG-wielder pulled the trigger. In hindsight, it was the wrong decision, but the Apache crew didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
The wholesale slaughter of random people is not a good look when you're trying to install 'our democracy' on a country.
Actually that's SOP for our style of democracy. See Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and now of course Ukraine and Israel.
Do you think that maybe the 'heavily armed' people with the journalists were there for the protection of the journalists?
Err.. no? I don't think RPGs and RPKs are standard police issue. Also Reuters never even made that claim.
In the 'edited' and unedited video it doesn't look like an RPG as they are long and pointy and the camera was flat ended.
Uhuh.. which the pilot or gunner saw when it was in profile. Whe it was poined straight at the Apache, what's the difference in shape between a round camera lens on someone's shoulder, and an RPG on someone's shoulder?
Citation needed. Are you referring to the 17 minute vs 39 minute videos that were both released on wikileaks
You've self-cited. The 39min version was the 'full' version, the 17min was the infamous 'Collateral Murder' one that had been edited down for dramatic effect. Then the US I think later released additional footage that provided more context. The more complete version showed the Apache tracking a pretty heavily armed group complete with RPGs along with the Reuters crew. Apache lost sight as they moved behind a building, then saw someone kneeling around a corner, pointing something pretty much the shape of an RPG. So the Apache engaged, the rest became an altered version of history. Engaging the cameraman was unfortunate, but I think justified.
I do think the full video showed excessive force, arguably war crimes committed after the people had been shot, but that's war for you. There's plenty of similar footage coming now from Ukraine where both parties are executing soldiers who are clearly hors de combat, or attempting to surrender, but the reporting on those tends to be very one-sided. ICC investigators are in Ukraine though.
the powers that be preferred to libel him as a suspected rapist rather than clear up the business.
As he fled to avoid answering those charges like a man, Assange is, and always will be an alleged rapist. This is not at all libellous because by choosing not to be tried, no court has found him innocent or guilty.
It should be borne in mind that spurious accusations of sexual offences are standard procedure used against whistleblowers in the UK and USA
Don't forget Presidential candidates..
None of these posters have any realistic knowledge of Julian Assange's actual character.
I'm pretty sure he could be diagnosed with NPD. It's all about Assange, which was his mistake. He became bigger than WikiLeaks. He editorialised his infamous 'Collateral Murder' video to set his own narrative. He then decided to become political and selectively leak and spin the Clinton emails etc. He made a classic journalistic mistake of becoming the story, and making rather powerful enemies.
What we do know is that he bravely exposed evidence of massive criminality and corruption at the heart of the USA establishment at unknown risk to himself.
Utter bollocks. What 'he' did, or more correctly wikileaks did was expose evidence that other people arguably took risks to expose, eg Chelsea Manning as an example. Then his ego took over Wikileaks and it became the Assange show, with him deciding what to leak, and again making himself the story.
His term in the Ecuadorean embassy was entirely his own choice and should not be factored into any penalty beyond classing it as time on the run/evading police.
As long as he's expelled from the UK and PNG'd, I don't really care what happens to this shameless self-promoter. I'd also like to see him billed for wasting police time.
So that was Rule #1 all over. Cornered?
Nope. I refer you back to where you came in..
That was figurative of course. Fact is, you keep spewing unscientific bullshit in each and every non technical domain you address: climate, economics, energy policy, cell biology, immunology, etc. You're proven wrong over and over again
again demonstrating you're incapable of following your own rules, let alone this forums. Have you ever actually contributed anything useful, or even relevant to any discussion on El Reg? Without attibution, it's rather difficult to figure out if you contribute, or if you exist here purely to troll. Again demostrating why libtards such as yourself are incapable of rational debate, and instead resort to insults and virtual face punching.
Rule #1: Accuse others of what you're guilty of.
Yep. This would be projection. You still can't see that one, can you? See also mirroring, which you have a blind spot for as well. Hmm.. do you like garlic?
Rule #2: When you're proven wrong and one of your lies is debunked. Double down.
Yep. Figured out the relationship between cost, price, inflation yet? See also Rule #1..
Rule #3: When you're running out of arguments on a given topic, just jump to other unrelated and irrelevant topics.
Yep. Exactly what you've been doing here with your ominslurs. Or just trying to make up your own rules, and of course those rules don't apply to you, dear troll..
Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won.
Yep, again exactly what you've been doing on this discussion board, and the previous one. Sadly, El Reg's 'moderators' don't seem to care about the constant stream of insults from an anonymong who's too much of a coward to be attributed..
FIFY
Nope. Just demonstrating yet more projection. Unsuprising given donkeys are often blinkerd and led around by their nose. Also Democrats, especially those good'ol boy Southern ones have often used 'monkey' as a racial slur.
In a criminal case, the evidence would have to be turned over. But, because US tort law is so generous, many cases are civil, NDAs and other gag orders apply and no one gets a subpoena.
Subpoenas are widely used in civil cases as well, otherwise people would just refuse to provide any evidence or testimony. Don't forget there are different types, ie court ordered, lawyer orderded or even Congress/Senate ordered. See Hunter Biden's refusal to testify or given evidence for more info..
But still not clear about NDAs, ie per wiki-
Also, the party being subpoenaed has the right to object to the issuance of the subpoena, if it is for an improper purpose, such as subpoenaing records that have no relevance to the proceedings, or subpoenaing persons who would have no evidence to present, or subpoenaing records or testimony that is confidential or privileged.
Which seems to have happened in this case, ie Tesla trying to subpoena Apple to find out if one of the drivers was playing games when he went to meet Darwin. AFAIK this is where special masters can come in, ie a judge can allow a subpoena to produce evidence that the master can then review to determine if it's confidential or priveliged. I assume it must be possible to override an NDA, otherwise employers could just issue every employee with one to prevent any disclosures.. Employers often do do this, but it offers limited protection I think.
As for intimidation: Trump has for years used legal threats to intimidate and silence people, including Stormy Daniels. Reap what you sow, as it says.
True, see Lunden Roberts for more info. Wasn't even allowed naming rights. But yep, lets see what happens with the appeals. It's entirely normal that so many Trumped up charges get levelled against the greatest threat to Democratcy. Trump's problaby the greatest example of how legal theats can be used to intimidate and silence someone standing for election. And NYC is probably a great example of what happens when you make up the law as you go along. Poor city, currently dealing with an influx of illegal immigrants, and an exodus of tax payers who've seen what could happen, should they choose to invest in that city.
Yes, but the NDA prevents any disclosures from the case being used in other civil suits. That makes finding a "smoking gun" quite a bit harder.
There were a lot of documents filed that wouldn't be subject to NDA, so all the lawyers really need to do is use those to make similar cases. Not sure if they could also subpoena parties who were involved in this case, or if NDA trumps subpoenas, ie if you are compelled by the courts to answer truthfully, can someone say 'sorry, nope, NDA'. Think that's the kind of thing the US uses 'special masters' for though.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
