Slashdot Mirror

I'd have to disagree about solar thermal, we not too long ago got this one running in the US: http://www.engadget.com/2014/0...

There's this one in Israel due to be finished in 2017: http://www.brightsourceenergy....

One in Chile that was just announced: http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/08...

One in South Africa: http://www.itweb.co.za/index.p...

That looks pretty active to me, and far from dead, Spain alone has 30 smaller thermal solar plants already and is building another dozen or so, along with lots of other ones in development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Their own internet might simply mean "not connected or dependent upon" the current network

I have seen nothing to indicate that Brazil is thinking of not allowing packets to be routed to the rest of the Internet, or even just to US; they are thinking of allowing packets to much of the rest of the world to be routed there without passing through the US, but that's another matter (and that appears to have been an idea originated in South Africa, well prior to the Snowden revelations).

Samsung NC215s is the world's first solar laptop way back in 2011.

It's on Amazon with real reviews and here's a customer unboxing video

Article mentions the NC215s but claims it didn't have a 10 hour battery life while this review says the NC215s did have a 10 hour battery life... not that it really matters if the laptop can run on sunlight.... unless you're visiting the Arctic I suppose

Assuming they don't explode or electrocute you first.

It's hardly unique. Lots of AV has giant flaws. Here's one we tested recently: eScan

Actually, I just got a Nexus 7 tablet. M$ is done for. Apple should be scared.

I don't think they have any reason to be worried just yet given the shoddy build quality, screen washout/ghosting, stuck pixels and poor support. Maybe one day, but certainly not now.

Getting the antenna deployed is another matter. For example ICASA has serious corporate governance problems.

I live in South Africa and I regularly pick up high power WLANs in my neighbourhood. And I suspect many of them are used to carry CCTV signals or to bypass the expensive telecoms operators. The public is sympathetic to these cause. So compliance with government regulations will not be very high.

Officially, vandalism is defined as edits made in bad faith.

In other words, the scope of the problem does not include discovering the cure for human stupidity, however laudable that might be.

Furthermore, people here are failing to apply the 80-20 rule: if you can clean up 80% of the vandalism at 20% of the human effort currently expended, the attention available to deal with the difficult twenty percent would more than triple. I've seen entire pages replaced with the word "penis" or a crass four word comment about some pimple twit schoolmate. There's a lot of low hanging fruit here.

I sometimes think Wikipedia needs to implement a mechanism where citations are corroborated by some semi-trusted party: "yes, this citation really contains the support for the claim added to the article." Any editor who hasn't contributed a corroborated citation needs to be kept on a fairly short rope. My opinion is that the underlying currency of good faith contribution is the properly cited claims, preferably from A-list source material and not Joe Random Blog.

How much vandalism is contributed by editors who have added fully sourced claims to three or more articles? If I've seen such a case of vandalism, I can't recall it. I've seen editors make half a dozen quasi-good faith contributions (always unsourced) who have then degenerated into petulance and destruction, perhaps when testing limits becomes a better way to get noticed.

Most of the vandalism I've run into has been fairly fresh, using a couple of days old or at most a week. On obscure articles, I've encountered heavy vandalism that persisted unchallenged for months. In some ways the long-standing dark-corner vandalism is more problematic, like the mother-in-law who swipes her finger in some obscure crevice to document a damning laxity.

Another case I've often seen is vandalism caught by someone inexperienced, and fixed in that instance (but not with a conspicuous revert), while ten other vandalisms from the same editor on the same spree remain unrepaired. If an unproven editor's contribution seems to be suffering a higher than normal attrition rate, then everything the editor has done should be flagged for attention.

A lot could be built on top of a decent blame function, such as the ability to determine whether two versions of an article differ only in text, and with better exposure statistics for how often an edit has been viewed by someone who ought to know the difference.

This article is no great bag of chips, but it contains some pertinent key phrases.

AI comes of age

This fellow Kroon seems to believe that augmented intelligence is the way of the future. I concur. The game is to best combine what humans do well with what the algorithms do better, combined with an effectiveness metric taking into account power law distributions, minus all the pointless hand-wringing about highly motivated adversaries escaping the cunning traps.

Profound acts of bad faith are not remotely the same problem. It's unconscionable scope-creep to bring these worries into the petty vandalism conversion. Yes, some fraction of the thwarted petty vandals will escalate into more profound acts of vandalism. Such is life. Problems remain for the future. Many people think we've made no progress on spam. My view is that the spam filters have essentially driven all the amateur spammers out of the system. Once the level of professionalism required to get spam past the spam filters begins to equal the difficulty of doing a real job, then the flow of spam will finally begin to atrophy.

Another example is ProPolice (or other stack smashing guards) which accomplishes nothing at all on a formal basis, but nevertheless tilts the landscape on exploit cost/benefit, and qualifies your adversaries. One of the heavy burdens on Wikipedia as it now sta

South Africa had banned VoIP technology until recently. There's lots of information in this 2001 article:

http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2001/0103271307.asp?A=VPN&S=VPN&T=Section&O=SBR

They actually have been giving away free software, or deeply discounted, to school systems. Of course this is in the US of A.

A class action lawsuit accusing overpricing results in MS proposal to give free software to schools. "In addition to all of these hard-dollar commitments, Microsoft has also agreed to provide free software to eligible schools. The value of this software can only be estimated as it depends on the volume requested by schools, but it may exceed $500 million valued at Microsoft's heavily
discounted academic prices." Yeah, because it costs them money to give away fre software?
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200111/msg00294.html

"Unfortunately, as much as the proposal would no doubt help schools, it creates a situation where Microsoft isn't so much paying a penalty for monopolistic abuses, but is instead being allowed to spend $1 billion to extend their reach into the hotly contested education market"
http://db.tidbits.com/article/6645

Here's south africa, where they claim the plan had been in the works before the SA government announced support for open-source:
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/computing/2002/0202151028.asp?S=Computing&A=COM&O=FRGN

Oh, I guess that means you were right.

Defence pundit Helmoed-Römer Heitman told the Weekend Argus that if "the cause lay in computer error, the reason for the tragedy might never be found".

Yeah, because computers are so mysterious, and a computer that makes life-or-death decision, would never log anything that might allow a debugger to determine why it made an unusual decision.

Seriously, if it's designed in such a way that you can't analyze it, then you have to pull it from service, whether it's currently killing people or not. That's just ridiculous.

From here:

Young says he was also told at the time that the gun's original equipment manufacturer, Oerlikon, had warned that the GDF Mk V twin 35mm cannon system was not designed for fully automatic control. Yet the guns were automated. At the time, SA was still subject to an arms embargo and Oerlikon played no role in the upgrade.

It may just be me, but automating a machine that fires explosives that isn't designed to be automated just sounds like a Bad Idea(TM).

When Telkom SA were owned by SBC (Now AT&T, surprise surprise) they slapped one of their online critics (www.hellkom.co.za) with a 'hate speech' lawsuit worth (then) almost 1 million US dollars http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2004/0408111546.asp?S=Legal%20View&A=LEG&O=FRGN

Telkom eventually dropped the case (a year later and after SBC had sold its shares in Telkom), but the action goes a long way to show where AT&T's attitude to freedom of expression really lies.

"You can build it, design it, and it will work great. The trouble begins when you want to add things to it, add some services and things like that. Because of the brittle nature of the platform, when you do that, other things break", Martin Taylor July 2005

"A number of studies by IDC and Gartner have proved our platform has a lower TCO than open source because there are no hidden costs."

'[Nick Barley] refuted allegations that MS security was lax, saying .. "We've spent a lot of time recently trying to educate the marketplace"', June 2004

"The study found that enterprises using Microsoft's .NET/Windows platform to build and support custom applications incur 25% to 28% less cost than those using J2EE/Linux platform during a four-year lifecycle", May 2004

This is what all companies do. Before you rush to defend Apple, remember that they have thousands of patents -- including one for *organizing songs by album name or artist* on an mp3 player, and are currently teaming up with Microsoft to fight for stronger patent laws in Europe (in an attempt to cripple open-source).

Now would be a good time to remember that Microsoft and Apple are working together to fight against the open-source community on this.

(Thanks to Leoxx for the linkage.)

Interesting since Apple has partnered with Microsoft to specifically undermine the open source community in Europe.

However, companies such as Microsoft and Apple Computer argue that they need broader patent protection to prevent open source companies, which give away their software and make money through service, from effectively expropriating their development costs.

3D viewing through spinning projections is nothing new. Viewers which utilize an upwards-facing projector and rotating screen in the center of a sphere have been around for a while. I can't find a link at the moment, but the concept is not new. It is cool to see LEDs and fiber-optics used, as well as a new real-time scanning method.

The really cool ones, though, are the hologram techinques that use reflected light to produce an image in space. Here's a short piece from wired and an over view of some other technology.

"Sony also announced yesterday that it had reached an agreement with Comcast to offer Sony and MGM movies over Comcast's video-on-demand systems and on new cable channels that it would form with the Sony group."

From an article here.

I don't know about you, but i hardly ever go to the movie store anymore (unless i want to own a DVD). I rent most of my titles from Time Warner's video-on-demand. This agreement opens up that whole distribution channel (no pun intended) for all of those classic MGM titles.

Yes, "analysts". Jebus fucking crabs. Yankee Linux findings rigged too. I'm SHOCKED! shocked I tell you.

There's lots of counter examples to 'horrible customer support'. I've had excellent support, usually, and when there have been exceptions to that, polite persistence on my part resolved the issue. See this article today: Apple Customer Service Report But then, I know, I'm posting to /. ;-)

Ok how about just perjury alone. Forged video evidence was also presented in the anti-trust trial in the U.S.

Ok how about the court's decision, upheld on appeal, that the company used illegal methods to maintain a desktop monopoly?

There are also the false and misleading advertising, against palm, novell, and regarding MS-Passport. MS-Passport cannot be secure even in theory, so any claims were clearly known to be falsehoods. And since MS-Office 2003 is tied into that, expect more legal action.

Then there have been a series of fines regarding patent infringements. The most recent being from SPX.

Where I come from, all that's called lying or stealing.

Let the government talk with it's money and people will listen.

Being allowed to publish product reviews of products would allow a greater risk that tools be chosen based on technical merit rather than ideology. Also, it would help if news stopped refering to MSTDs as "Internet Worms" and "e-mail Viruses" and start talking about options.

It looks like we've reached a junction where it's time to start asking in all seriousness, "Is Windows ready for the Internet?"

Odds are that, despite the great admiration for Bill Gate's personal wealt, it is not. Now when sensitive government documents or personal financial or medical data start circulating (actually they already have), it is too late and will an issue for the courts: gross negligence, willful negligence or fraud. This will be a hard one for both Redmond and CTOs to wiggle out of.

Anyway, doesn't it ever occur to the press that Microsoft could actually be doing a better job researching into securifying their products *pre* release?

The obstical to progress is lack of discussion about solving the problem, and especially lack of discussion about selecting technology based on technical merits rather than admiration of Bill Gates' personal wealth.

It is very difficult for casual users to find a way off the Wintel hamster wheel. Not only do OEMs push only MS products, computer magazines do not publish real product reviews any more. It's like one big cult and discussion or critique of technical issues turns ad hominem. e.g. "Oh, you just hate MS".

It's even harder for the non-technical, general public. Radio, television, and newspapers contribute to the problem by effectively providing spin / damage control for MS by omitting the obvious fact that all these worms and viruses are due to product defects either in design or implementation or both. Instead of refering to all MSTDs as "Interent Worms" or "E-mail Viruses, news sources could easily be pointing out the cause of the problem or replacement technologies. e.g. Point out mail clients like Eudora, Evolution, Mozilla, Opera, and even old pine are consistently higher quality, especially in regards to stability and security. Or, point out operating systems like Linux, BSD, Solaris, Netware, QNX, or OS X which are easier to maintain, more stable, and more secure. Now that KDE is as easy (or difficult) as WInXp, there's no excuse not to.

It's probably time to ask, "Is Windows ready for the Internet?" The answer is likely to be a resounding, "NO!"

When is somebody going to finally decide to call them on this and force Microsoft to do a security audit?

True, although the $3 or $4 billion profit per quarter and 80+% profit margins in the Office and Windows sections (with the current donations, "super deals" to the OEMs, academic versions, etc., mind!) sure do.

Then there's the issue of Enron-style accounting. In 1998, Microsoft ran an $18 billion loss. Sure 1998 was a while ago, but it was also when the IT sector was gravy. Since then sales of new Intel boxes have plummeted and MS-Windows sales depend largely on OEMs. Now the prices for MS-Office are plummeting to near free-market prices. Microsoft depends on MS-Windows and MS-Office as it's only two cash cows and both look to be drying up.

I say again that there is no guarantee that there's enough money in the bank to keep MS operating through the end of the year.

The campus agreement you describe for StarOffice sounds interesting. I'd think more universities would be interested in it as a long term investment in electronic publishing as there are plans for it and OpenOffice.org to support the upcoming OASIS XML-based format. That'd increase the likelihood of parsable term papers, theses, and dissertations.

Or 6 (million) other reasons:

1. 14 aug
2. 13 aug
3. 12 Aug
4. 11 Aug
5. 8 Aug
6. 7 Aug

No sense in letting a rejected post go to waste. :)

Here's more background on the ideas and issues at stake, especially (surprisingly) the technology press links.

At the recent Wireless Internet Opportunity for Developing Nations conference, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that 802.11b (AKA Wi-Fi) has "a key role to play everywhere, but especially in developing countries and countries with economies in transition," where there is little to no telecommunications infrastructure in place. Keynote speaker Intel CTO Pat Gelsinger was understandably thrilled saying, "We see millions of people with the potential to become Wi-Fi users," and that wireless Internet was particularly appropriate for developing nations because it was neither government-regulated nor licensed. With 40-50 million PCs in use already, developing nations (including China and India) now make up the fastest growing market segment. Intel's new Centrino 802.11b laptop chipset and 30-mile-range MANs now under development that are based on 802.16 make Gelsinger hope for a sales bonanza that will put Intel in the lead for wireless notebooks. Critics say that a technology focus is not the panacaea for the poor, but instead solutions should be matched to the needs of a population.

[C]ommentary from media and intellectual property law firm Buys Inc, which says: âoe...for now the SCO letter looks like a campaign made more for the media than the courtroom.â

It's very hard (if not impossible) to press a false advertising claim for an intangible like "secure", "cheap", or "reliable

Either it works now or it doesn't. Either it does what it says it does in the brochure or it doesn't. If it does, great, more power to them. If it doesn't, then they should lose their shirt.

Sorry Bill, I have to call bullshit on this one.

Astute /.'ers will recall His Billness having to withdraw an ad that claims his wares "makes hackers obsolete". Even more astute /.'ers will remember the day when Microsoft's own code was compromised. They can't even protect their own IP with their own products! If M$ can't keep its own IP secure with Windows, who can?

you joke, but blow-hard Balmer sold stock recently.

probably just co-incidence. I mean if it wasnt he'd be insider trading and that would be illegal. And nobody in Microsoft management would ever do anything illegal would they?

I can't see this conspiracy theory working; riaa.org has been down since forever (and might I just say what a shame that is ;-) so they can't have exchanged any emails...

BTW, the uptime graphs for riaa.org never cease to amuse me. Hardly helps Microsoft's case in their "Extinct Hackers" advertising campaign!

for your elightment:
www.itweb.co.za
www.news24.co.za
www.africam.co.za
www.easyinfo.co.za
www.afrilux.co.za
(Disclaimer: This site belongs to a family member)

More?

Just one correction: It is South Africa, not South America. Apparently (according to the PR) the groom fragged the bride after the vows. Bizzaro! You can read my article on the event on ITWeb later today (after it gets posted).

Is it possible that MS is just trying to kill Java by ignoring it? We don't support it, so no one will use it?

Not necessarily. Sun jumped on MS for changing Java to move it away from the standard and towards a proprietary, Windows-Only version, but that particular ball has momentum. I'd lay money that there are dozens of companies that would love to take that business from Microsoft, just so long as they can be assured that MS won't step on them. Rational would be free to continue developing a non-compliant product, and MS would get to dodge the lawsuit bullet: sounds like a win-win to me.

Oh yeah - except for those of us actually concerned with platform portability. Oops.

But mention Red Hat and Linux to Aubrey Edwards, group product manager for Microsoft's forthcoming Windows NT upgrade Windows 2000, and he seems almost on the verge of stifling a yawn. ''When you look at the hype versus the reality today,'' says Edwards, ''there is a big disconnect.''

Never trust a man who uses the word "disconnect" inappropriately. It's a variety of corporate slang common to PHBs.

Discrepancy. Difference. Not disconnect.

For example, Java was originally designed to prevent users from saving files to a computer's hard drive - a good security precaution, but worse than useless for word processing.

Once again, a journalist who can't differentiate between Java and Applets. Java applications have always been able to read from hard drives. Say what you want about the language, but it's not a toy. (It may not be possible to make this statement of applets.)

Talk to Microsoft executives and they'll tell you that a similar fate awaits Linux. Charles Fitzgerald, director of business development in Microsoft's software development unit, says the Linux hype has already peaked. ''Cold hard reality is coming to bear,'' he says.

>sarcasm<
If I were looking for a good source of unbiased Linux coverage, I'd look to IT professionals. Hey, the director of business development for Microsoft looks like a good choice!
>/sarcasm<

Seriously - doesn't anyone find it odd that Troan's comments only address the comparison of Linux to Java, and not allegations by Microsoft executives? I'd like to see a little bit more balance in this story.

Fitzgerald points to recent benchmark tests by the research firm Mindcraft Inc., which found Windows NT performs a variety of tasks faster than Linux.

What more needs to be said about this?

On Mindcrafts Reports Page They say "our .. reports give you the peak performance of various systems"

Many things were pointed out here and elsewhere, that changes they made *reduced* the performance of the Linux setup

Microsoft addmitted, via Ian Hatton, that the "NT box was better tuned than the the Linux Box

So, here we have a report on performance, where is seems to be clear that the linux box was running nowhere near its performance peak, but Mindcraft by publishing this report are certifing that it was at "peak performanance"

If it can be clearly shown that they are certifing something that is false, could they be forced to retract the "certified" report?

Now, *That* would be nice PR