Here me out. Now that they are up to 1TB per platter with current tech on 3.5 inch drives just imagine what they could fit into a 5 1/4 inch drive now!!
Umm, around 9.1 TB? ((Simply did 5.25" drive area / 3.5" drive area) * 4 TB)
Nice. That plus however many more platters you could fit into it considering the 5.25 bay is deeper than a 3.5 inch HD.
Also, thanks for not making an issue of my misspelling one word. I'd been up since the previous day working and am also not feeling well, so I'm not going to feel bad about one obvious misspelling.;)
This is all well and good, but couldn't just one manufacturer afford to set aside one measly manufacturing line for making 5 1/4 inch Hard Drives again?
Here me out. Now that they are up to 1TB per platter with current tech on 3.5 inch drives just imagine what they could fit into a 5 1/4 inch drive now!!
I know I wouldn't be the only one willing to shell out bux for one of those, providing they used all that space intelligently: With Data Spaces that large it would pretty much be a requirement to include built in internal Mirroring RAID of some sort between the platters, or at least provide the option, for data integrity and protection and longevity of the unit.
I've been salivating over that dream for years now.
For those who insist on saying that chrome's security method is good enough consider this: How many people use separate log-in's for the "Family" computer that stays on most of the time? Not very many I'd imagine, just too much trouble for most to deal with.
And that's exactly why Chrome didn't add this feature. Nobody wants to log out and log in again just to get into Facebook to check their status, which is exactly what you have to do if you want the browser to remember your facebook password, but don't have the Firefox password for the main Windows/Mac/Unix profile.
Seriously? Seriously? That's why they don't "allow" the "option" of a separate master password like Thunderbird has? Really?
If someone is going to be super-unsecure in how they do things, then fine, that's them. But to then mandate that as the standard and not even "allow" better security practices? I'm scratching my head really hard trying to understand this point of view of "crappy-security = best-security" newspeak that some people including the chrome dev keep trying to defend...
Chrome let's you password protect your passwords as well, at least in Linux with KDE. When I go into Chrome, it opens up the KDE Wallet to store the passwords, which makes me type in the password for it. After this, you can view the passwords plain text. You can also specify the wallet behavior, including making it so that every time anyone tries to access it you need to type in your password. Sounds like normal security functionality to me.
Sounds like it is depending on external software to do that, software that isn't on all platforms. As nice as it is to have the option of using that external software when using that particular OS, it would be even nicer if it also directly supported such a feature like Thunderbird does. When using Thunderbird in Windows it offers that same functionality by default within itself without requiring some possibly-not-present external software. Why can't chrome do that too? Especially if, as another poster says, it is using the same core code for password storage as Thunderbird already?
Chrome uses the same core OS key storage that Firefox/Thunderbird does, and encrypts with the same master password--if I save a password in Firefox, it's available in Chrome and vice-versa. Both use kwallet on KDE, gnome-keyring on Gnome platforms, keychain access on the Mac, etc.
You can lock access to view them however the OS does so (e.g. with gnome, either Applications->Settings->Passwords and Keys, and select "Lock passwords", or from the command line, and gnome automatically locks them when your screensaver locks; on KDE it's the "Wallet Manager", I forget which menu it's under; on the Mac it's Utilities->Keychain Access, and click the little lock at the top of the keychain to lock/unlock). All 3 of those systems default to using your login password and automatically unlocking the keychain when you log in, but you can set the password separately (and be prompted to unlock it when you go to use it) if you want.
The problem here is that Windows' password management doesn't offer a reasonable alternative, but that's not Chrome's fault.
If chrome uses the same code for password storage as Thunderbird does then they have even less of an excuse for not allowing a separate Master password like Thunderbird does by default. That then does in fact become chrome's fault. It makes the chrome dev's obtuse iron-clad stance look even more nefarious and deliberate than before...
Thunderbird's master password system has nothing to do with the OS so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I have to type my separate master password into Thunderbird in order to access those passwords in plaintext, regardless of how I'm otherwise logged in. Perhaps you've never actually used it?
Chrome's security tech lead gives a pretty good answer here:
Consider the case of someone malicious getting access to your account. Said bad guy can dump all your session cookies, grab your history, install malicious extension to intercept all your browsing activity, or install OS user account level monitoring software. My point is that once the bad guy got access to your account the game was lost, because there are just too many vectors for him to get what he wants.
People worried about the security of this are worried over the wrong things. Firefox's master password would do absolutely nothing to stop a dropped-in extension from monitoring webpages for when passwords are filled, grabbing the filled form-data, and storing it in the extensions own preferences; and that wouldnt even take a background process, admin privileges, or really anything more than the ability to drop a file in the firefox profile.
I would be willing to place a large bet that in any scenario that would allow me to recover Chrome or Safari passwords, I would also be able to recover firefox passwords that are locked with a master password, within a reasonable amount of time. As has been said many many times, anything that tries to protect against a malicious user with access to your user session is pure security theatre.
You are both missing the point entirely. The issue is to have the default security bar set high enough to at least stop casual information theft. Your definition of a "Malicious person" only accounts for an incredibly tiny percentage of people with such skill sets and doesn't even consider the majority of people. As it is now chrome is practically begging average people to steal that info if even the slightest opportunity arises.
Most kids or people in general likely don't know enough or aren't motivated enough to bother setting up some kind of exploit on a usb stick or website to do the kind of things you are talking about. However; if you make it as incredibly easy as chrome does to grab that info without having even necessarily pre-planned to do it then those same people will be highly tempted to do it, and enough will.
It's the same principle as locking your home or your car. Sure, someone could pick the lock or break it, does that mean you give up and don't bother locking it and just count on the "security" offered by the police force? Does that make locking your door "Security Theater"? No, because for the most part the lock is more than enough of a barrier to block "casual" entry and most people won't pick it or break it. However; leave your car & home unlocked all the time when you are gone with a sign on them saying they are unlocked (equivalent of using chrome while logged in but stepped away for even a short time) and eventually some otherwise "honest" citizen or lazy crook will not be able to resist the temptation. The percentage of illegal activity will shoot way up. There is a solid case for locking your door, as well as keeping password lists locked under a separate Master password.
Again; Why not just allow a separate Master password like Thunderbird does? It's clearly not difficult to implement or use.
Best option: don't let your browser remember your passwords.
1) You might need to sign in from a different browser someday, and if you don't know your password, you are stuck.
2) Having all your passwords in one place means someone need only hack that one place to get access to everything.
3) Encrypted or not, if the passwords are on the disk then they can be stolen.
Putting some effort into a personal, comprehensive password-management strategy is very worthwhile. You think you have more important things to do? These passwords are the keys to your entire life. Think again.
In general I agree, I disable the auto-password feature in my browser but many many people do use the browser password memory system. One way or another, if chrome is going to offer the feature they should at least allow the option for the use of a master password instead of categorically refusing to for some unknowable reason.
It's very easy to implement and open source code is readily available for them to copy or learn from at their leisure. I just can't see any rational excuse for them to maintain this stance.
Firefox has the option to protect saved passwords with a master passwords and if you already unlocked the password store, in order to read password from the GUI, you need to unlock it again
Exactly. Mozilla's email client Thunderbird also uses a Master Password to unlock the view-ability of the stored passwords.
For those who insist on saying that chrome's security method is good enough consider this: How many people use separate log-in's for the "Family" computer that stays on most of the time? Not very many I'd imagine, just too much trouble for most to deal with. This means that both other family members as well as house guests can casually access all those passwords in no time.
Even if you do use different log-ins consider this type of common scenario: Your son or daughter has a "friend" over and they are cruising the web on her account doing whatever. Say that they are reading some news item or article together when the daughter gets up to go the bathroom. Do you think for one second that she is going to lock the computer and force her friend to wait to finish what she is doing? No. Her "friend" will then be able to casually and quickly access all those passwords and type them into her iphone for safe keeping before your daughter gets back. She now pwns your daughters facebook account, bank account, cellphone account and who knows what else.
How can anyone with a straight face say that is an acceptable security method? The fact that my open source email client has an easily useable default master password system proves that it is something that chrome could easily implement as well, hell, just copy the open-source code from thunderbird if you need to...
To be quite frank; when I think of Google or Microsoft "my security" is not something I honestly expect from them, and this newest revelation just further confirms that perception.
My first exposure to the word and concept of Arcology/Arcologies was with [William Gibson's novel Neuromancer in 1984]. But thanks to gp poster (Bruce66423) and parent poster (YuppieScum) I now know about the earlier use of the word and concept in [Larry Niven's 1981 novel "Oath of Fealty"].
Branson didn't elaborate on exactly what he meant by these. Sort of sounds like a reusable Space Shuttle type of craft though which can go into orbit and stay there for as long as its supplies last then return to Earth.
I wonder how long it will be though before he starts sending special "Orbital Spaceships" on a one-way trip into orbit where they will stay and act as "Space Stations" that normal "Orbital Spaceships" can later dock with?
In fact; perhaps he could design them in such a way so that multiple special orbital spaceships can be interconnected one at a time to form a larger space station? That way each piece of the space station can carry itself up into orbit in one go without requiring another ship to carry the equivalent parts up in several trips.
But regardless; even using the piecemeal method it seems like Branson could start ferrying Space Station parts into orbit as soon as those new "Orbital Spaceships" are launching. Simply send up some of those sections and parts up with each and every tourist trip, with as many of those tourist trips as he is planning to have it shouldn't take very long to accumulate as much material up in orbit to build whatever he wants (perhaps an Orbital Virgin Galactic Hotel?).
Heck; he wouldn't even need to bother with spacewalks and spacesuits, just drop a couple of tele-robotics builders in orbit with the material stash and his guys could start building from the comfort of their office chairs down at Headquarters on Earth, possibly wearing Oculus Rift VR headsets. The future is being built!
It has been possible to see 3D directly without glasses on special LCD screens since at least as early as 2004. It's called "Autosteroscopic 3D".
Sharp released a monitor back in 2004 that did this. Philips has also been huge in this field and have also released monitors commercially that allow this. In fact, Philips worked for a long time with Sony on how to update the Blu-Ray standard to allow for 3D data. Initially No-Glasses 3D Screens were sold to other companies to use for window advertising to catch peoples attention since they didn't require special glasses. It's actually fascinating how they accomplished this form of 3D, I didn't even believe it at first until I read the details on how it works.
Here are a couple of old links that prove this. Unfortunately some of the other links I had no longer resolve..
I just have to ask; How is the new Elite going to be significantly different from a game like X3 Terran Conflict? It might be easier and faster for him to just license and reskin the X3 engine.
Highly charged Iron particles huh? Hmm, how about generating a rotating magnetic field around the ship? aka "Force Field".
You know a ship of that size will have a nuclear power source of one sort or another like many other of our space craft have and do, so it should be capable of powering a magnetic field generator. Should be old tech even.
Awesome. Awakening Cthulhu from its icy slumber right on schedule!
Should give it just enough time to consume all our souls by midnight 12/21/2012 after it's awakening and release. Wait.. This drilling project wasn't funded by a kickstarter project was it?
Said organization must comply with the following requirements:
- Uniforms should be brightly colored, vaguely indicating role, and adaptable to look good while allowing for command-level officers to engage in hand-to-hand combat on a regular basis. - All senior officers should be skilled in everything. Yes, everything. We'll decide who does what based on who's standing around at the moment, not based on some specialized set of skills or designated responsibilities. - The organization should construct a fleet of vessels, with one vessel getting all the priority assignments while the rest of the fleet does Sudoku until needed for a well-intentioned but otherwise ineffective show of support. - The organization should be composed of scientists and explorers who just so happen to run around with the most powerful weapons currently available. Asteroids can hurt, right?
And as to the assumptions made by a number of posters here that the FBI never followed up on this or took it seriously.. There is nothing in the memo or TFA to indicate that; simply a lack of announcement from the FBI, which many would expect.
Yes, this memorandum to the Director of the FBI does state that the agent who took the statement had not further evaluated "the above". This refers to that single lone agent as of the time the memorandum was submitted, it does not in any way tell us what the FBI as a whole did to "further evaluate" the statement and circumstances it refers to once the Director of the FBI received and read this memorandum.
The lone agent would likely not be in a position to "further evaluate" something of this scale and magnitude by himself without support, planning and discretion given to him by his superiors; which would have to occur After giving them the info he had on it in the first place. Notice who this memorandum is addressed to?
"An Air Force Investigator" is hardly just "some dude". And I guess you thought the fake quote with made up info was funny.
Great ways to try and falsely trivialize something, debunking 101. Though I suppose it's understandable to have a knee-jerk reaction like that when you read more into an article title than you believe should be there after actually reading TFA, so there's that.
Still, please sit back and calmly think about what is in that memo. A statement from an Air Force Investigator in 1950 made to an FBI agent. That actually is pretty serious. And as to the assumptions made by a number of posters here that the FBI never followed up on this or took it seriously.. There is nothing in the memo or TFA to indicate that; simply a lack of announcement from the FBI, which many would expect.
Feel free to look the document-scan over again and allow yourself to see it in a clearer context.
Yay!!! Thank you for this story! Whatever your point is or the controversy is supposed to be, all that matters is that I now know that there is movement again on the Commodore/Amiga front. Who knows when I would have learned about any of this otherwise? CommodoreUSA owes you a debt of gratitude for this advertising I'm sure.
Most of what brought me into the computer age was my C64 and later my Amiga. Many today won't have been old enough to remember that computer/software/game stores like Software Etc. in the malls at one point were at least half Amiga software, written by Microsoft even. If that oil barron hadn't bought out Commodore and purposely run it into the ground to bankrupt it Commodore would have shaped the entire computer industry!
Today a computer is a computer, but back then an Amiga was so far ahead of everything else it was amazing! A fully windowed multitasking color OS that was easy to use 10 years before Windows 95. Think about that shit. Even Billy Gates was writing software for it. God, what could have been... And the games for it were amazing, and not just for when they came out.
I'll have to read up on what the new version of the company is up to but good luck to them. Years ago I thought about how Amiga would be the perfect way to reintroduce the concept of a complete computer in a keyboard etc. I'm gratified to see that someone else had the same idea and dream. I hope it succeeds in some way.
It's great to see IVT (Infinitely Variable Transmission) tech getting some attention again. It's important to note the it was invented around 1988 by Paul Pires in California. I remember reading about it in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics around that time.
Paul Pires is an electronics guy and designed the IVT using a circuit methodology that auto designers don't use. He came at the problem from a completely different point of view than anyone else before. The company that he Patented this under is called Epilogics, also in California.
His IVT has been fully functional for years and has the same benefits as this D-Drive claims to have. I would be very curious to know what the functional differences are between these designs, if there are any... I wonder if Paul Pires Patent has expired? I read that it has been theorized his design didn't get much uptake because car companies only wanted to use the designs that they had their own patents for, and their CVT designs were good enough that they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use his superior IVT design. In fact, his design is a breakthrough! It has been used in high torque trucks and was going to be used in race cars until racing rules were changed to not allow automatic.
Here are some pages with some more info on it with images of his design:
It's great to see IVT (Infinitely Variable Transmission) tech getting some attention again. It's important to note the it was invented around 1988 by Paul Pires in California. I remember reading about it in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics around that time.
Paul Pires is an electronics guy and designed the IVT using a circuit methodology that auto designers don't use. He came at the problem from a completely different point of view than anyone else before. The company that he Patented this under is called Epilogics, also in California.
His IVT has been fully functional for years and has the same benefits as this D-Drive claims to have. I would be very curious to know what the functional differences are between these designs, if there are any... I wonder if Paul Pires Patent has expired? I read that it has been theorized his design didn't get much uptake because car companies only wanted to use the designs that they had their own patents for, and their CVT designs were good enough that they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use his superior IVT design. In fact, his design is a breakthrough! It has been used in high torque trucks and was going to be used in race cars until racing rules were changed to not allow automatic.
Here are some pages with some more info on it with images of his design:
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, around 9.1 TB? ((Simply did 5.25" drive area / 3.5" drive area) * 4 TB)
Nice. That plus however many more platters you could fit into it considering the 5.25 bay is deeper than a 3.5 inch HD.
Also, thanks for not making an issue of my misspelling one word. I'd been up since the previous day working and am also not feeling well, so I'm not going to feel bad about one obvious misspelling. ;)
This is all well and good, but couldn't just one manufacturer afford to set aside one measly manufacturing line for making 5 1/4 inch Hard Drives again?
Here me out. Now that they are up to 1TB per platter with current tech on 3.5 inch drives just imagine what they could fit into a 5 1/4 inch drive now!!
I know I wouldn't be the only one willing to shell out bux for one of those, providing they used all that space intelligently: With Data Spaces that large it would pretty much be a requirement to include built in internal Mirroring RAID of some sort between the platters, or at least provide the option, for data integrity and protection and longevity of the unit.
I've been salivating over that dream for years now.
For those who insist on saying that chrome's security method is good enough consider this: How many people use separate log-in's for the "Family" computer that stays on most of the time? Not very many I'd imagine, just too much trouble for most to deal with.
And that's exactly why Chrome didn't add this feature. Nobody wants to log out and log in again just to get into Facebook to check their status, which is exactly what you have to do if you want the browser to remember your facebook password, but don't have the Firefox password for the main Windows/Mac/Unix profile.
Seriously? Seriously? That's why they don't "allow" the "option" of a separate master password like Thunderbird has? Really?
If someone is going to be super-unsecure in how they do things, then fine, that's them. But to then mandate that as the standard and not even "allow" better security practices? I'm scratching my head really hard trying to understand this point of view of "crappy-security = best-security" newspeak that some people including the chrome dev keep trying to defend...
Chrome let's you password protect your passwords as well, at least in Linux with KDE. When I go into Chrome, it opens up the KDE Wallet to store the passwords, which makes me type in the password for it. After this, you can view the passwords plain text. You can also specify the wallet behavior, including making it so that every time anyone tries to access it you need to type in your password. Sounds like normal security functionality to me.
Sounds like it is depending on external software to do that, software that isn't on all platforms. As nice as it is to have the option of using that external software when using that particular OS, it would be even nicer if it also directly supported such a feature like Thunderbird does. When using Thunderbird in Windows it offers that same functionality by default within itself without requiring some possibly-not-present external software. Why can't chrome do that too? Especially if, as another poster says, it is using the same core code for password storage as Thunderbird already?
Chrome uses the same core OS key storage that Firefox/Thunderbird does, and encrypts with the same master password--if I save a password in Firefox, it's available in Chrome and vice-versa. Both use kwallet on KDE, gnome-keyring on Gnome platforms, keychain access on the Mac, etc.
You can lock access to view them however the OS does so (e.g. with gnome, either Applications->Settings->Passwords and Keys, and select "Lock passwords", or from the command line, and gnome automatically locks them when your screensaver locks; on KDE it's the "Wallet Manager", I forget which menu it's under; on the Mac it's Utilities->Keychain Access, and click the little lock at the top of the keychain to lock/unlock). All 3 of those systems default to using your login password and automatically unlocking the keychain when you log in, but you can set the password separately (and be prompted to unlock it when you go to use it) if you want.
The problem here is that Windows' password management doesn't offer a reasonable alternative, but that's not Chrome's fault.
If chrome uses the same code for password storage as Thunderbird does then they have even less of an excuse for not allowing a separate Master password like Thunderbird does by default. That then does in fact become chrome's fault. It makes the chrome dev's obtuse iron-clad stance look even more nefarious and deliberate than before...
Thunderbird's master password system has nothing to do with the OS so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I have to type my separate master password into Thunderbird in order to access those passwords in plaintext, regardless of how I'm otherwise logged in. Perhaps you've never actually used it?
Chrome's security tech lead gives a pretty good answer here:
Consider the case of someone malicious getting access to your account. Said bad guy can dump all your session cookies, grab your history, install malicious extension to intercept all your browsing activity, or install OS user account level monitoring software. My point is that once the bad guy got access to your account the game was lost, because there are just too many vectors for him to get what he wants.
People worried about the security of this are worried over the wrong things. Firefox's master password would do absolutely nothing to stop a dropped-in extension from monitoring webpages for when passwords are filled, grabbing the filled form-data, and storing it in the extensions own preferences; and that wouldnt even take a background process, admin privileges, or really anything more than the ability to drop a file in the firefox profile.
I would be willing to place a large bet that in any scenario that would allow me to recover Chrome or Safari passwords, I would also be able to recover firefox passwords that are locked with a master password, within a reasonable amount of time. As has been said many many times, anything that tries to protect against a malicious user with access to your user session is pure security theatre.
You are both missing the point entirely. The issue is to have the default security bar set high enough to at least stop casual information theft. Your definition of a "Malicious person" only accounts for an incredibly tiny percentage of people with such skill sets and doesn't even consider the majority of people. As it is now chrome is practically begging average people to steal that info if even the slightest opportunity arises.
Most kids or people in general likely don't know enough or aren't motivated enough to bother setting up some kind of exploit on a usb stick or website to do the kind of things you are talking about. However; if you make it as incredibly easy as chrome does to grab that info without having even necessarily pre-planned to do it then those same people will be highly tempted to do it, and enough will.
It's the same principle as locking your home or your car. Sure, someone could pick the lock or break it, does that mean you give up and don't bother locking it and just count on the "security" offered by the police force? Does that make locking your door "Security Theater"? No, because for the most part the lock is more than enough of a barrier to block "casual" entry and most people won't pick it or break it. However; leave your car & home unlocked all the time when you are gone with a sign on them saying they are unlocked (equivalent of using chrome while logged in but stepped away for even a short time) and eventually some otherwise "honest" citizen or lazy crook will not be able to resist the temptation. The percentage of illegal activity will shoot way up. There is a solid case for locking your door, as well as keeping password lists locked under a separate Master password.
Again; Why not just allow a separate Master password like Thunderbird does? It's clearly not difficult to implement or use.
Best option: don't let your browser remember your passwords.
1) You might need to sign in from a different browser someday, and if you don't know your password, you are stuck.
2) Having all your passwords in one place means someone need only hack that one place to get access to everything.
3) Encrypted or not, if the passwords are on the disk then they can be stolen.
Putting some effort into a personal, comprehensive password-management strategy is very worthwhile. You think you have more important things to do? These passwords are the keys to your entire life. Think again.
In general I agree, I disable the auto-password feature in my browser but many many people do use the browser password memory system. One way or another, if chrome is going to offer the feature they should at least allow the option for the use of a master password instead of categorically refusing to for some unknowable reason.
It's very easy to implement and open source code is readily available for them to copy or learn from at their leisure. I just can't see any rational excuse for them to maintain this stance.
Firefox has the option to protect saved passwords with a master passwords and if you already unlocked the password store, in order to read password from the GUI, you need to unlock it again
Exactly. Mozilla's email client Thunderbird also uses a Master Password to unlock the view-ability of the stored passwords.
For those who insist on saying that chrome's security method is good enough consider this: How many people use separate log-in's for the "Family" computer that stays on most of the time? Not very many I'd imagine, just too much trouble for most to deal with. This means that both other family members as well as house guests can casually access all those passwords in no time.
Even if you do use different log-ins consider this type of common scenario: Your son or daughter has a "friend" over and they are cruising the web on her account doing whatever. Say that they are reading some news item or article together when the daughter gets up to go the bathroom. Do you think for one second that she is going to lock the computer and force her friend to wait to finish what she is doing? No. Her "friend" will then be able to casually and quickly access all those passwords and type them into her iphone for safe keeping before your daughter gets back. She now pwns your daughters facebook account, bank account, cellphone account and who knows what else.
How can anyone with a straight face say that is an acceptable security method? The fact that my open source email client has an easily useable default master password system proves that it is something that chrome could easily implement as well, hell, just copy the open-source code from thunderbird if you need to...
To be quite frank; when I think of Google or Microsoft "my security" is not something I honestly expect from them, and this newest revelation just further confirms that perception.
Here is a stand-alone Lego Motor block from 1976:
http://www.toysperiod.com/lego-set-reference/universal-building-set/supplemental/lego-107-1-4-5v-motor-set/
Here is a page full of Lego Technics sets from 1977:
http://www.brickset.com/browse/themes/?theme=technic
I remember wanting that motor block and those shiny new Technics sets when they first came out, I wanted them so bad...
This type of structure is considered to be an Arcology.
"Arcology, a portmanteau of the words "architecture" and "ecology", is a set of architectural design principles aimed toward the design of enormous habitats"
http://www.bookdrum.com/books/neuromancer/9780441012039/glossary.html
My first exposure to the word and concept of Arcology/Arcologies was with [William Gibson's novel Neuromancer in 1984]. But thanks to gp poster (Bruce66423) and parent poster (YuppieScum) I now know about the earlier use of the word and concept in [Larry Niven's 1981 novel "Oath of Fealty"].
Oath of Fealty (1981) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fealty_(novel)
Neuromancer (1984) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer
* 'Oath of Fealty' looks really good, I'm tracking it down to buy it now! Again, thanks to Bruce66423 and YuppieScum for this discovery.
"Orbital Spaceships".
Branson didn't elaborate on exactly what he meant by these. Sort of sounds like a reusable Space Shuttle type of craft though which can go into orbit and stay there for as long as its supplies last then return to Earth.
I wonder how long it will be though before he starts sending special "Orbital Spaceships" on a one-way trip into orbit where they will stay and act as "Space Stations" that normal "Orbital Spaceships" can later dock with?
In fact; perhaps he could design them in such a way so that multiple special orbital spaceships can be interconnected one at a time to form a larger space station? That way each piece of the space station can carry itself up into orbit in one go without requiring another ship to carry the equivalent parts up in several trips.
But regardless; even using the piecemeal method it seems like Branson could start ferrying Space Station parts into orbit as soon as those new "Orbital Spaceships" are launching. Simply send up some of those sections and parts up with each and every tourist trip, with as many of those tourist trips as he is planning to have it shouldn't take very long to accumulate as much material up in orbit to build whatever he wants (perhaps an Orbital Virgin Galactic Hotel?).
Heck; he wouldn't even need to bother with spacewalks and spacesuits, just drop a couple of tele-robotics builders in orbit with the material stash and his guys could start building from the comfort of their office chairs down at Headquarters on Earth, possibly wearing Oculus Rift VR headsets. The future is being built!
It has been possible to see 3D directly without glasses on special LCD screens since at least as early as 2004. It's called "Autosteroscopic 3D".
Sharp released a monitor back in 2004 that did this. Philips has also been huge in this field and have also released monitors commercially that allow this. In fact, Philips worked for a long time with Sony on how to update the Blu-Ray standard to allow for 3D data. Initially No-Glasses 3D Screens were sold to other companies to use for window advertising to catch peoples attention since they didn't require special glasses. It's actually fascinating how they accomplished this form of 3D, I didn't even believe it at first until I read the details on how it works.
Here are a couple of old links that prove this. Unfortunately some of the other links I had no longer resolve..
http://www.pcworld.com/article/117303/article.html
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/
Other than that, it's all good news. I think we'll all be glad to be free of the glasses.
\.
I mean they did the 1000 page Battlefield Earth in under 2 hours in film and that turned out great...
"Battlefield Earth" + "turned out great" in the same sentence?... Travolta, is that you?
I just have to ask; How is the new Elite going to be significantly different from a game like X3 Terran Conflict? It might be easier and faster for him to just license and reskin the X3 engine.
http://www.egosoft.com/games/x3tc/screenshots_en.php
Highly charged Iron particles huh? Hmm, how about generating a rotating magnetic field around the ship? aka "Force Field".
You know a ship of that size will have a nuclear power source of one sort or another like many other of our space craft have and do, so it should be capable of powering a magnetic field generator. Should be old tech even.
Awesome. Awakening Cthulhu from its icy slumber right on schedule!
Should give it just enough time to consume all our souls by midnight 12/21/2012 after it's awakening and release. Wait.. This drilling project wasn't funded by a kickstarter project was it?
# 1: Female uniforms must include mandatory Shiny Purple Sexy Wigs.
http://fortresstakes.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/ufo_moonbase_girls_purple_wigs.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UFOTVDVDnew.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)
Said organization must comply with the following requirements:
- Uniforms should be brightly colored, vaguely indicating role, and adaptable to look good while allowing for command-level officers to engage in hand-to-hand combat on a regular basis.
- All senior officers should be skilled in everything. Yes, everything. We'll decide who does what based on who's standing around at the moment, not based on some specialized set of skills or designated responsibilities.
- The organization should construct a fleet of vessels, with one vessel getting all the priority assignments while the rest of the fleet does Sudoku until needed for a well-intentioned but otherwise ineffective show of support.
- The organization should be composed of scientists and explorers who just so happen to run around with the most powerful weapons currently available. Asteroids can hurt, right?
And as to the assumptions made by a number of posters here that the FBI never followed up on this or took it seriously.. There is nothing in the memo or TFA to indicate that; simply a lack of announcement from the FBI, which many would expect.
Yes, this memorandum to the Director of the FBI does state that the agent who took the statement had not further evaluated "the above". This refers to that single lone agent as of the time the memorandum was submitted, it does not in any way tell us what the FBI as a whole did to "further evaluate" the statement and circumstances it refers to once the Director of the FBI received and read this memorandum.
The lone agent would likely not be in a position to "further evaluate" something of this scale and magnitude by himself without support, planning and discretion given to him by his superiors; which would have to occur After giving them the info he had on it in the first place. Notice who this memorandum is addressed to?
It's the FBI noting that some dude claimed
"An Air Force Investigator" is hardly just "some dude". And I guess you thought the fake quote with made up info was funny.
Great ways to try and falsely trivialize something, debunking 101. Though I suppose it's understandable to have a knee-jerk reaction like that when you read more into an article title than you believe should be there after actually reading TFA, so there's that.
Still, please sit back and calmly think about what is in that memo. A statement from an Air Force Investigator in 1950 made to an FBI agent. That actually is pretty serious. And as to the assumptions made by a number of posters here that the FBI never followed up on this or took it seriously.. There is nothing in the memo or TFA to indicate that; simply a lack of announcement from the FBI, which many would expect.
Feel free to look the document-scan over again and allow yourself to see it in a clearer context.
http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/at_download/file
Yay!!! Thank you for this story! Whatever your point is or the controversy is supposed to be, all that matters is that I now know that there is movement again on the Commodore/Amiga front. Who knows when I would have learned about any of this otherwise? CommodoreUSA owes you a debt of gratitude for this advertising I'm sure.
Most of what brought me into the computer age was my C64 and later my Amiga. Many today won't have been old enough to remember that computer/software/game stores like Software Etc. in the malls at one point were at least half Amiga software, written by Microsoft even. If that oil barron hadn't bought out Commodore and purposely run it into the ground to bankrupt it Commodore would have shaped the entire computer industry!
Today a computer is a computer, but back then an Amiga was so far ahead of everything else it was amazing! A fully windowed multitasking color OS that was easy to use 10 years before Windows 95. Think about that shit. Even Billy Gates was writing software for it. God, what could have been... And the games for it were amazing, and not just for when they came out.
I'll have to read up on what the new version of the company is up to but good luck to them. Years ago I thought about how Amiga would be the perfect way to reintroduce the concept of a complete computer in a keyboard etc. I'm gratified to see that someone else had the same idea and dream. I hope it succeeds in some way.
Does the arm cost 6 Million dollars, or do we get a full set for that amount?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Six_Million_Dollar_Man
It's great to see IVT (Infinitely Variable Transmission) tech getting some attention again. It's important to note the it was invented around 1988 by Paul Pires in California. I remember reading about it in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics around that time.
Paul Pires is an electronics guy and designed the IVT using a circuit methodology that auto designers don't use. He came at the problem from a completely different point of view than anyone else before. The company that he Patented this under is called Epilogics, also in California.
His IVT has been fully functional for years and has the same benefits as this D-Drive claims to have. I would be very curious to know what the functional differences are between these designs, if there are any... I wonder if Paul Pires Patent has expired? I read that it has been theorized his design didn't get much uptake because car companies only wanted to use the designs that they had their own patents for, and their CVT designs were good enough that they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use his superior IVT design. In fact, his design is a breakthrough! It has been used in high torque trucks and was going to be used in race cars until racing rules were changed to not allow automatic.
Here are some pages with some more info on it with images of his design:
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=960
Popular Science 1992 Article:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mgEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Epilogics+ivt&source=bl&ots=H7oaFk_PTZ&sig=OTtkBd1ddU8kRz_bgPmpl6-HIQE&hl=en&ei=lBLvS-_GDJDqsQPLi7X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Epilogics%20ivt&f=false
http://www.autostechpro.com/heavy-duty-cvt-works-without-a-belt
It's great to see IVT (Infinitely Variable Transmission) tech getting some attention again. It's important to note the it was invented around 1988 by Paul Pires in California. I remember reading about it in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics around that time.
Paul Pires is an electronics guy and designed the IVT using a circuit methodology that auto designers don't use. He came at the problem from a completely different point of view than anyone else before. The company that he Patented this under is called Epilogics, also in California.
His IVT has been fully functional for years and has the same benefits as this D-Drive claims to have. I would be very curious to know what the functional differences are between these designs, if there are any... I wonder if Paul Pires Patent has expired? I read that it has been theorized his design didn't get much uptake because car companies only wanted to use the designs that they had their own patents for, and their CVT designs were good enough that they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use his superior IVT design. In fact, his design is a breakthrough! It has been used in high torque trucks and was going to be used in race cars until racing rules were changed to not allow automatic.
Here are some pages with some more info on it with images of his design:
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=960
Popular Science 1992 Article:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mgEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Epilogics+ivt&source=bl&ots=H7oaFk_PTZ&sig=OTtkBd1ddU8kRz_bgPmpl6-HIQE&hl=en&ei=lBLvS-_GDJDqsQPLi7X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Epilogics%20ivt&f=false
http://www.autostechpro.com/heavy-duty-cvt-works-without-a-belt
Uranus isn't an element.
Maybe he was referring to the dark matter on Uranus?
Gatorade - It's what Martians crave!