Slashdot Mirror

>It really needs to get really bad before people start realizing how patents are hurting economy and innovation, to a point where there vote on such matters count.

This statement is a little too general. Patents aren't necessarily the problem, what is more problematic is that they're being abused.

Patents were supposed to protect small businesses and startups with a new idea. Now they're being used for extortion (a la Microsoft forcing Samsung, HTC, etc. to pay for a WP7 license on every phone they sell) and manipulation (see here). And it's much easier for large corporations to acquire them becuase they can pay for the application fees or patent auctions.

What's obviously clear here is that patents aren't serving their original intention. What the US needs is legislation to stop patent abuse, particularly by large corporations. But there are too many lawyers in America, so it will never happen.

aka Down Low Swallower aka Scarf aka Bisexual Lifeform Assfucked Zeaously Everyday aka Blaze

I read this patent and did I discover a really new thing ? No. We can imagine all sorts of patents of this kind. Furthermore touch screens exist for a long time, so the methods to use a touch screen should not be patented. I agree than some very new types of touch screens may be patented, but only the touch screens themselves and the technologies used to build them, but no more, and limiting the patents only to a very narrow field.

Software patents should not be issued.

Keep in mind that when Apple filed for this patent, they were still smarting from Creative Labs suing them for having the audacity (no pun) to organize the iPod's data into Artists, Albums and Songs (which was, IMHO the absolute embodiment of an "obvious invention), and there was someone else that sued them for the "click wheel".

I remember when Jobs did the Keynote introducing the iPhone. He went through the various gestures, said "We worked long and hard on this interface, and boy have we patented the heck out of it!"

Well, this is that patent. And Apple deserves every single year of their protection.

Ok, so you agree that the trend over the last century is upward but you feel that selecting all data from all reconstructions is cherry picking

Absolutely. Selecting all data from all reconstructions is still an arbitrary choice. Perhaps if we had all 4 billion years of data, and each reconstruction had all 4 billion years of data, I couldn't make that statement, but the history of climate and weather certainly exceeds our reconstruction history, don't you agree?

IRT to 1934, I may be mistaking claims of "warmest year ever for the US" versus "warmest year ever for the world":

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

Although honestly, as I look through the press regarding those kinds of claims, they're often blurring the line between the two. Someone may say "hottest year in US ever!" and have it turn into a headline that says "hottest year ever!"

And again, I refer you to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/the-past-is-not-what-it-used-to-be-gw-tiger-tale/ and look forward to your ad hoc explanation of the adjustments they made to make the alarmist position more tenable :)

If the irrational over-reaction to nuclear power based on the Fukushima disaster were mirrored in other industries, then the Titanic would have ended the ship industry, and Ford's exploding Pinto would have ended the auto industry.

And just because water-cooled nuclear reactors were and always will be a stupid idea, doesn't mean that all types of nuclear reactors are stupid ideas.

There was an editorial at DailyTech about this recently: DailyTech nuclear power editorial

This information is incorrect and Slashdot is among the last to correct it. The arrest of Robert Cavanaugh was some time ago and he had nothing to do with LulzSec.

http://www.dailytech.com/LulzSec+Hacked+Nope+Sony+Hacked+Again+Yes+Twice/article21832.htm

Dont agree. 2007 was loong ago.
Take a look at the development hence: http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/19721_large_fpsales.jpg

10 years ago it sales were basically 100% CRT. Now, its 15%, worldwide.

Alive and well? More like sick and dying

http://www.dailytech.com/Unsecured+Routers+Land+People+in+a+Heap+of+Police+Trouble/article21453.htm references Sarasota, FL / Buffalo, NY / N. Syracuse, NY
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Open-Wi-Fi-blamed-in-child-porn-case/2100-1036_3-6177095.html?tag=untagged shows an event in Buffalo again (different person)
That's 4 events I found without even trying. Who knows how many more are out there, and remain unmentioned? And let's not forget all the **AA-targetted people who were sent blackmail letters, but then "let go" because they were too old, didn't have computers, or whatever. The point is, IP addresses don't tell you squat... though the police think it points a finger directly at the culprit. Idiocy.

According to...

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=21097

"The attack also exploited poor coding in Apple's branch of WebKit, which features many bugs and security flaws. While Apple's WebKit branch, which powers its Safari browser, shares a certain amount of code with Google's WebKit browser Chrome, Google has added much more robust security layers and is less buggy."

So it looks like the exploit is Safari specific.

A tracker is not a wiretap.

And more to the point, placing tracking devices without a warrant is already legal in several states and has so far been upheld by the ruling of the 9th circuit court:
http://www.dailytech.com/Ninth+Circuit+Court+Rules+in+Favor+of+Warrantless+GPS+Tracking/article19464.htm

ahem

Yeah,

What i really don't get is how my Wow account is more secure then my back account.
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/8561_product.jpg

From the article: "The new RC build includes a Tracking Protection feature"

Does this preclude my Google search habits?

And other perks, like the free safety nets.

This has been done before on a much larger scale...

http://www.dailytech.com/Hotel+Accidentally+Makes+Solar+Death+Ray+Burns+Lawyer/article19756.htm

NASA, GISS and James Hansen have been busted before (by amateurs) for being wrong several times :

Deja Vu All Over Again: Blogger Again Finds Error in NASA Climate Data

NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.

A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data..

Steve McIntyre informed GISS (run by Hansen) of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13410&red=y#366381

NOAA has been singled out for calling 2010 the warmest year using faulty data

NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever: Missing Data, False Impressions

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/noaas-jan-jun-2010-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/

So when 50% of the subscribers have an option to make their monthly rates go down, you call that a slight reaming? This chart shows that more than 50% of the iPhone users can live under 200MB/month on their current data plans. All of them are eligible to go down a rate tier.

I'm not conflating data rate caps with service-based packet tolling, I'm merely comparing them. When it first came out (several years ago) that a company would consider data caps, there was a considerable amount of outrage, specifically from sites like Slashdot. However, during implementation, it turns out that AT&T did a pretty good job with them. For instance, take a look at this chart. You'll see that most users fall below 200MB of data, the cheapest plan offered.

While service-based packet tolling sounds like a really nasty idea (and can be if implemented incorrectly) it can actually make the things better for all the users if implemented correctly. AT&T/Verizon/your telco is not in the business of making things worse for you. They have an incentive (your dollars!) to make things as compelling as possible for you to continue doing business with them.

That's the way it goes? So you can claim that it never happened without offering any proof other than that one of the networks that reported it also reports things with which you disagree? I would have thought the onus would be on you too. Oh well, here's another couple of links.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/wikikills_LBS03WQRVZuuTYuTYN2t5L

http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/07/30/taliban-use-wikileaks-to-hunt-murder-named-afghans/

http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+Elder+Thanks+Wikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250.htm

I can do this all day, since you apparently can't. Saying I do this for a living and asking what you do is not an ad hominem attack, regardless of how snarkilly I say it. It's directly relevant to the conversation. Your comment about "your cut-price low tax state gave you after cutting back education" and "putting together glorified high school reports from people that don't even speak the fucking language " and "you wouldn't have written the recycled Fox bullshit" when what I posted didn't come from Fox all sound like personal attacks not relevant to the discussion. I am in fact a senior all-source intelligence analyst with 14 years experience in the intelligence community, and have created products using methods such as Social Network Analysis at about a Master's level, Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, human factors analysis, et al, a far cry from "glorified high school projects".

To get back to the point, there are multiple reports of the Taliban targeting the sources reported in wikileaks, in US papers and UK papers as well. We know there are sources named in the leaked documents (it was one of the first things announced in the press). It stands to reason that the Taliban would then target them (why would they let spies just stay in their midst?). IF the Taliban were not in fact targeting them, there should be a reason why there are so many reports in so many newspapers in the US and UK that say they are. No reasons come to mind. My bullshit detector is not going off here. You, on the other hand, rejected all the reports outright on the sole grounds that a news station, Fox, that also separately reports things you disagree with, also reported this, as if the station can never report anything that is true. You have since refused to offer any other evidence or logical argument. My bullshit detector is going off, and it's pointed at you.

I disagree, I don't believe 40,000 is a "okay" day. I don't know anything about the number of these phones that are out there, but I what I could find briefly is for distributors so far are AT&T, the same company that is providing service for the iphone, amazon, the world's largest on-line distributor, AND Best Buy a huge brick-and-mortar chain of stores. Between them, they sold 40,000 units whereas the iphone sold 270,000 for the same period, almost SEVEN times as many and just from Apple and AT&T stores/on-line.

You can argue that sales will pick up after Verizon starts carrying it next year and once natural turnover will force people to buy new phones, but I'd put it as 50-50 that this is the highest rate of sales that they'll ever see with this OS and that from here on out it's downhill. While I don't think this will be another Kin that will get pulled from the shelves in a few months, they haven't made nearly the impression they need to in order to get any sort of widespread awareness of the public that this is a useful thing to buy.

For the record, I don't own an iphone, nor do I text, nor to I patronize the apple store with any regular frequency.

Not to mention this looks like the "fun" we had with Nvidia awhile back with different names for the same chip which made it SO much fun to figure out which were the better cards. Between that BS and bumpgate on the NV side, and the Intel OEM bribery and compiler rigging on the Intel side, this lifelong Intel+Nvidia man went AMD. The bang for the buck on both the CPU and GPU side is just crazy, and it is a hell of a lot easier to tell the mainstream from the low end from the high performance with AMD. The x6xx are the mainstream, the X5xx are the low mid, the x3xx and x2xx are the budget, and the x7xx and x8xx are the high end. And of course the bigger first number equals newer series, like 4xxx to 5xxx to 6xxx. Easy Peasy, not to mention the AMD chips don't heat the hell out of my apt or sound like a Hoover upright like the NV chips did.

It is really a shame, but IMHO ever since NV started courting the GP/GPU market their consumer chips have really gone downhill. Sure they crank decent numbers but they suck more juice than a P4 and heat the place up like a P4 as well. Pretty much the only ones I've been selling NV to lately is the "got to have the biggest ePeen LOL!" types, and even those are starting to look at AMD crossfire simply because of the insane heat and power being used by NV. Nobody enjoys having their game room feel like a sauna.

And here is an article on this exploit technique:

http://www.dailytech.com/USB+Drive+Malware+Exploit+Windows+7+Flaw+in+Apparent+Espionage+Effort/article19065.htm

http://www.dailytech.com/USB+Drive+Malware+Exploit+Windows+7+Flaw+in+Apparent+Espionage+Effort/article19065.htm

What, you can't actually make a link?

Your comment kinda reminds me of those who say "analog television frequencies aren't being used any more". And then they suggest using them for cellular phones/internet. But the reality is that those frequencies ARE being used: By digital television (channels 2-51) and Emergency Radio (52-59) and cellphones (60-69)(approximately). Every inch of space is assigned.

Umm, NO. Thin slices of the same spectrum are being used by digital TVs. LOTS of the space, though not contiguous, are not being used by it. That's why the FCC is going to allow others to use that unused 'white space' between the thin slices used by digital TV btoadcasts.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14497

Not nearly every bit of the spectrum is being used, or assigned.

The dilemma: protecting developers' investments, and revenue stream, while keeping an open platform.

From (note: there's no reason to read the article I'm about to link, it's badly laid out with terrible ads and I'll quote the title) another article:

Android Skins, "Crapware" Protected by Open Source Principles, Says Schmidt

Please note, I could not find where Schmidt said these exact words but there was some sentiment of this in his interview. And there's some truth to it.

Truth be told, I'm a little wary of applications on my Android based Motorola DROID. I have seen the skins apps and am curious how one maker gets licenses for Zelda, Minnesota Vikings, Justin Beiber and all other kinds of imagery when they sell these skins. This sort of questionable content makes me wonder what other questionable things are being engaged. Likewise, I'm also a little wary of a lot of the free games I play. One in particular is the Solitaire Free Pack which, as it so turns out, I am a big fan of the ~40 variants of solitaire they offer. I also would like to use the Kindle application on my phone. There's just one problem: it wants my Amazon account login and password.

You know, it's not that I don't trust Android, Google or Amazon ... it's the other apps I've unwittingly installed willy nilly on my phone while bored or drunk on the metro. You'll probably be able to assure me that there's no way another app could access the disk or memory space of the Kindle app but it just seems unsafe. I would not find iOS all that much more reassuring but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in the paranoia of storing account information inside my phone -- or even repeatedly typing it in.

I don't have any proof that it's a real security issue and I hope apps somehow get very restricted memory and disk spaces but I think Google has a little further to go on security as well as offering developers a way to recoup losses. Since it'll undoubtedly be DRM like their early attempts, I hope it's stressed to be opt-in and not advised.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=19681

Apparently the iPhone4 (yes, the article mentions an iPod Touch 4 which has only 256 megs of RAM, but comments from users on this gen of iPhone affirm the benchmark result) is much slower than phones like the Nexus One in HTML5 tests and uses twice as much battery charge to run the same program at half the framerate. From the comments, it looks like the iPhone 4 is almost identical to the first gen Droid in this benchmark, except for the double battery burn issue. And oddly enough, switching to a Flash version on the Android phones results in much higher performance than was seen with HTML5. Someone with a hacked iPhone should run the Flash version to find out whether Flash>HTML5 in iOS.

Yes, this is just one particular benchmark, and it says nothing conclusive about hardware or platform. It does make for an interesting early comparison, though, doesn't it?

"You'd think Intel would just accept they suck at GPUs and buy Nvidia already."

Should Intel buy nVidia? Jen-Hsun Huang, who averages about $23.02 million per year, is not the sort of person who would easily integrate into Intel, and he is important to the leadership of nVidia. Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini, makes about $14 million.

Soon Intel's integrated graphics will have mid-range speed, leaving only the high range for nVidia. The high range of video adapters is mostly bought by teenagers who want to practice being violent with video games, instead of practicing being involved with other people. That means nVidia will be dependent on buyers who are being self-defeating; eventually there may be a backlash against that.

The high range of video performance will always be needed for architectural drawing and machine design, for example, but the total demand will drop, as the nVidia stock price seems to indicate. So, maybe nVidia is not a good purchase for any company.

Should Intel CEO Paul Otellini be replaced? Another reason Intel should not buy nVidia is that Intel is generally a failure at anything besides making new CPUs and support chips. For the success of Intel and AMD in making CPUs, the world can be extremely thankful; that's enough success for any company.

But Intel in other areas seems amazingly badly managed. Intel marketing seems completely out of control. Is the product confusion at Intel a deliberate, sneaky way to sell slow processors to technically challenged customers, or just stupid?

Quote from the article linked just above: "Sandy Bridge PC processors will keep the CORE-i3, i5, and i7 designations and will be rebranded the "new CORE-i3..." That approach is likely to create confusion among customers about exactly what they're buying, given that the average user likely wouldn't be able to pick a Nehalem i7 from a Westmere i7 or Sandy Bridge i7."

Either Intel's purchase of the inferior security software maker McAfee for a "lofty 60% premium" is a HUGE mistake, or the reasons why it is not a mistake should be explained by Intel marketing. No explanation was given, apparently. McAfee has a 21.9% market share selling software often pre-loaded on a computer to technically challenged buyers.

Quote from the article: " 'We believe security will be most effective when enabled in hardware,' Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini said in a conference call." That seems a particularly wacky statement. "Security software" is needed only because, in my opinion, Microsoft deliberately allows its software to be insecure. Insecure software makes Microsoft more money because people with infected computers often buy another computer. For example, see the New York Times article, Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster. The Apple Mac OS, Linux, and BSD operating systems do not require "security software" because they are made to be secure.

Intel CEO Otellini does not seem to have the social sophistication necessary to running a big company. When he made an announcement in 2006 about the Intel Eduwise laptop, he seemed to be intending to have Intel compete with MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) charity program. However, Intel's intention seems to be just to make a market fo

The sterling engine heatsink fan

Really? You need a citation for this? Have you been sitting up a rock? Apple claiming it invented multitouch is hardly anything new and certainly not surprising.

As for Microsoft and the iMac ridiculous reply you had I won't bother as that is just laziness on your part if it isn't blatently obvious how Apple is buying up what they want rather than developing it in-house. Do you think Microsoft did any different in the 90s? Even the Simpsons made fun of that when Bill Gates bought Homer's Internet business.

Feel free to blind yourself to the whims of Apple. I learned my lesson the hard way with Microsoft, I feel no need to relearn it with Apple.

Yeah, because we all know that Google would never spy on anyone, or partner with anyone who does, like say the CIA.

http://www.dailytech.com/Former+Agent+Says+Google+and+CIA+in+Partnership/article4774.htm

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/141153

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/

Neat idea. Except that there's less malware on porn sites than on non-porn sites: (link)

The chicken came first

AT&T Two months ago

In those recent drive tests, AT&T's network dropped only 1.44 percent of calls nationwide, within two-tenths of 1 percent of the industry leader and a difference of less than two calls out of 1,000.

The usual caveats apply, where this information is in aggregate. I don't know whether smartphones generally have a different dropped call rate because of usage patterns. I think that instead of measuring dropped calls they should measure dropped calls per hour of talk time, which would help normalize the data. For example, I only use my cell phone for calls that are under a minute or two.

Even so, this is far better than this old story where iPhones in NY had a 30% drop rate.

Ya' mean like 'multispectral imaging '...? Georgia Tech Creates Palm "Tricorder" Scanner Technology - 2008

If you get your children one of these you in all likelihood won't have to be too concerned about any potential adverse effects 3D displays might have on your children's visual acuity.

This is a post I wrote for another forum on the subject of the Obama Administration's just released vision of intellectual property rights enforcement (as reported by DailyTech, which I assume to be a prelude or complement to ACTA:

The fact is, as others have often pointed out, digital information wants to be free. You can turn the whole world into criminals trying to fight that simple truth, but it's only going to create a virtual international police state. I don't want that, and I don't think you want that, either. If copyright infringement is that damaging to your bottom line, I think you have to figure out other ways to monetize your product.

There's only one analogous example to the grip of the media cartels that I can think of. Government and other organized labor employees are destroying the industrialized world with their lavish pensions and other benefits. They work 30 or 40 years and then demand and get guaranteed pensions for the rest of their lives, even while the countries they're sucking dry are going into national bankruptcy. Politicians naturally assume they'll just raise taxes ever higher in order to pay off these corrupt deals. May people know about the serious financial problems posed to the US by the public entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But nearly no one discusses the fact that Government Employee Entitlement costs are almost as large as the public Entitlements.

Similarly, with copyright protected media, the creator produces something once and then expects to receive guaranteed income from it forever. But in this case it's not even the original creator who gets most of the recurring revenue - it's the media cartel that distributes his or her product. Despite the fact that the march of technology has changed the way we interact with distributed media, some still expect to get rewarded financially in the same fashion that they were rewarded prior to the consumer Internet age.

Now here's the thing, I have a limited amount of respect for copyrights. I think granting a limited-time narrow monopoly to the creator of a given product is a desirable trade-off to support the creation of works of art and science. But the key word is limited. The Constitution calls for limited-time copyrights, but as time has gone on copyrights have gone from limited to unlimited, and now the media cartels want to turn the Internet into a virtual police state to enforce their permanent monopolies. If enforcement provisions like the ones envisioned go into effect, we're on a very slippery slope to the death of the Internet as we know it. If a person can be prosecuted for a random search term that may draw the wrath of the media cartels, then that means it's no longer safe to surf various sites and click links to different pages indiscriminately. Remember, we're talking about merely searching for terms that the media cartels think may lead to an infringing download, not the infringing download itself. What this is referred to as in the law is an "inchoate offense" - a violation of the law the precedes the actual illegal act, and it's a very controversial subject because of the far-reaching implications involved. When the media cartels get that kind of power over our online lives, it means they've taken things way, way, too far. And make no mistake - this will be a slippery slope. If government can snoop on search engine keywords to help the media cartels, what's next? Logically keyword searches about anything that could arouse even minor suspicion could put a user in danger. What this announcement looks like to me is a "War on Digital Piracy," and just like the "War on Drugs" it will certainly ensnare many innocent people, erode liberties and be of dubious value - if not harmful in all respects.

Is this a Socialist move? Yes, I believe

As said elsewhere, THIS case isn't about "just clicking a link"... This case is about "just clicking a link 114,000 times".

For a "security company", this is amazingly stupid. I could see downloading 100 records, just to be able to prove the exploit exists, and then provide ATT the information.
But 114,000 times? that's overkill and reckless, and the "security company" should now be liable for following proper information handling guidelines.
They then go completely overboard by PUBLISHING that (private) information.

A simple PHP script later, Goatse Security had a hoards of email addresses to sift through. And here's the kicker -- before reporting this gaping hole to AT&T, they shared the exploit with various interested parties. So there's no telling who else used it, how many more IDs were leaked, or what other damage could have resulted.
-TFA

These guys aren't a "friendly security company", they're crackers, and they should be treated as such.

"Today at its I/O Developer event Google revealed that it is now up to an incredible 100,000 Android activations worldwide per day."

source:
http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Unveils+Killer+Android+22+OS+Update+100K+Android+Phones+Sold+a+Day/article18444.htm

After Flash support comes out, buzz will be among the masses that your Android phone does everything that PC does plus much more.

Imagine watching Hulu on your phone, anywhere.

Why is this even news?

It's news because it's illegal to remove features from a product AFTER the owner has purchased it. Not in the US of course, but other places: dailytech article

It's interesting to note that the Air Force is taking over low-high orbit exploration. I recently read an article that if not mirrors slightly what Armstrong is talking about; it certainly elaborates on what proposition America has for it's space exploration future. The Air Force is proposing a new reusable platform aircraft for exploration; following in the long line of advanced craft with the same naming convention such as the Bell X-1 (which broke the sonic barrier) http://www.dailytech.com/US+Air+Force+X37B+Reusable+Spacecraft+to+Launch+Into+Orbit+Later+This+Month/article18077.htm, You'll also note that Nasa has recently started arming unmanned craft with scientific equipment; http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Global+Hawk+Completes+First+Science+Flight/article18096.htm I certainly think were in a transition right now with our space program, With the Air Force reusable platform; It's a scary thought should they decide to make it a weapons platform. I think we should see what's going to happen to our space program; also speak out if we don't agree as americans with what is happening to our space program. It was an awesome step that kennedy took in '61 and what we accomplished on July 20, 1969. It's unfortunate we haven't been back in 40 years. Lets see what we can do now with current technology.

It's interesting to note that the Air Force is taking over low-high orbit exploration. I recently read an article that if not mirrors slightly what Armstrong is talking about; it certainly elaborates on what proposition America has for it's space exploration future. The Air Force is proposing a new reusable platform aircraft for exploration; following in the long line of advanced craft with the same naming convention such as the Bell X-1 (which broke the sonic barrier) http://www.dailytech.com/US+Air+Force+X37B+Reusable+Spacecraft+to+Launch+Into+Orbit+Later+This+Month/article18077.htm, You'll also note that Nasa has recently started arming unmanned craft with scientific equipment; http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Global+Hawk+Completes+First+Science+Flight/article18096.htm I certainly think were in a transition right now with our space program, With the Air Force reusable platform; It's a scary thought should they decide to make it a weapons platform. I think we should see what's going to happen to our space program; also speak out if we don't agree as americans with what is happening to our space program. It was an awesome step that kennedy took in '61 and what we accomplished on July 20, 1969. It's unfortunate we haven't been back in 40 years. Lets see what we can do now with current technology.

http://www.dailytech.com/Champion+Gran+Turismo+Gamer+Becomes+Realworld+Racing+Champion/article17035.htm

Video game driving skills do apply to real life:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/othersports/04nascar.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Champion+Gran+Turismo+Gamer+Becomes+Realworld+Racing+Champion/article17035.htm

Quote: At the camp, Ordoñez proved a natural at racing in real world cars. He found his "experience to be consistent in the laps and to know the perfect line in the tracks" had helped him to be able to recognize real-world braking points.

As for the article/story:
1) The camera angle was too low for the car, and it was fixed.
2) In GTA3 etc who cares about hitting small stuff like traffic cones?

Quoting from http://www.dailytech.com/Porsche+911+GT3+R+Hybrid+to+Debut+in+Geneva/article17666.htm

The hybrid system in the GT3 R Hybrid uses a flywheel system that harnesses kinetic energy under braking to power a pair of electric motors mounted in a single assembly. The electric motors and flywheel assembly sit where the passenger seat of a street 911 would normally reside. Power gathered by the flywheel system is sent to the front wheels and when fully charged the hybrid system can provide a 6-8 second burst of power for passing and exiting corners activated by a button on the steering wheel. The flywheel in the hybrid system will reportedly spin as fast as 40,000 rpm.

The pair of electric motors provides an additional 161 horsepower to the front wheels supplementing the 4.0-liter flat-6 that produces 480hp and sends its power to the rear wheels. Porsche is mum on performance claims for the 911 GT3 R Hybrid, but the car will appear on May 15 at the Nurburgring 24 Hours endurance race."

So it's not too different from a normal hybrid, except instead of charging batteries to store the energy they are spinning up a flywheel. The forward kinetic energy of the vehicle is recovered as electrical power using generators/motors, which drives generator/motors that spin up a flywheel. Going the other way, the flywheel mechanical energy is converted back to electricity to drive the front wheel motors.

http://www.dailytech.com/US+Air+Forces+Laser+Air+Armada+Nears+Combat+Readiness/article17676.htm

600

It was real, but hyped. None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line, as some more fevered commentators speculated, nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize.

The interesting thing is that the international date line really does cause severe code problems. For instance, a squadron of F-22 Raptors was taken out by the date line.

The 747 has the significant advantage of being a relatively old plane, thus most of its systems were date immune. Also, a 747 won't fly inverted, or at least I don't know anyone that has tried to fly a 747 inverted. Nuclear power stations are another example of old equipment designed largely without date information in the critical systems.

I don't need evidence, you made an assertion. But here's a hint - a lot of the articles you're referring to had poor wording. Intel sold the Atom chip for $X alone, and for <$X in a 3 chip set. The 3 chip set, however, was still more than X.

See: Here

They had to correct the wording, it is actually:

Huang says that Intel sells the Atom chip alone for $45 but within a three-chip set (Atom processor, northbridge, southbridge) sells for only $25.

In other words, Oh Noesies! Intel gives bundle pricing like everyone else in the world!!

For the record, I guess saying you "lied" is a bit strong, I guess misinformed would be more polite but people keep saying Intel sold the Atom alone for more than the 3-chip set over and over like it's a fact and it's annoying.

Did Yahoo not think that women engineers would be present at this event? They make up roughly ten percent of engineers as a whole. Furthermore, did they think that there was some way that women attendees would be perfectly comfortable watching other women objectified on a stage?

Hell, there's women present in some of the pictures from the event -- I would love to hear their thoughts on this and what it was like being there.

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/12454_large_Yahoo_Hack_Event.jpg

Well, Microsoft has apparently threatened to stop selling Microsoft Office entirely, if the patent is allowed to stand.

That'd be an interesting gambit.

"We broke the rules, didn't adhere to the law, we're too big to fail so now the government has to step in and allow us to break the rules anyway. You know - like all the banks."

LOL. on my old 1GHz/512ram/pata hdd i have 22 seconds from ntldr to busy cursor gone. windows 7 doesn't even install on that

Yes, actually it does:

http://www.dailytech.com/Tinkerer+Squeezes+Windows+7+Onto+Pentium+II+System/article15509.htm

yeah, sure. and windows xp also runs on 486. the question is, can you really get the work done with xp on 486 or w7 on athlon 1Ghz ? also I'd bet the guy on that forum hasn't really installed w7 on 128MB ram. He probably performed the install with required RAM then unplugged the modules.