The total amount of energy stored is much larger per cycle - about five times as much. So 200 recharges for a LiS battery would give as much play time on your phone as 1,000 recharges on a Li-ion battery (the typical lifetime of such a battery). With the loss of capacity that may be 250 recharges for the LiS battery, with it still going strong after all that time.
So what're they waiting for? Life time is more than good enough already! I want one of these batteries! Much better than having to recharge my phone every single day!
When looking at electronics recently, specifically little ICs, they always specified the power usage in units of current.
It seems that the reason is that semiconductor ICs can handle a broad range of voltages, like 3V-15V, and use roughly the same current at the whole range. As long as your supply voltage is in that range, the components are happy. The same when powering LEDs, they need a certain current, and any supply voltage will do as long as it is high enough (you always have to add a resistor to regulate the current).
So giving power capacity of a battery used for supplying power to semiconductors in mAh is not exactly strange.
TFA mentions the use of two car racing engines, each 8-cyclinder, 8-liter, 490 hp.
It was meant to be a racer, so I guess ceiling didn't matter much (so no turbochargers or so to compress the air). 1,000 hp with a mere 16-liter cylinder space, sounds like a good deal compared to the other two engines, if all you care about is raw power and speed.
In the modern age of computer simulations (designers knew the A380 and Dreamliner jets would not only be able to fly, but also had a good idea on how they would behave, before they even moulded the first part of it), I do expect that they already tested that all out in a virtual wind tunnel. Weren't those modern performance enhancing wing tip designs invented in computer simulations?
I've to admit to not being an aircraft designer/builder, but if I were to pick up such a project as hobby, it's the first part I'd look into. Will it fly? How will it behave? What forces can we expect, and will the airframe be able to handle it? This in turn should also give a reasonable estimate on top speeds.
Hitler lost the day he started the war, for the simple reason that none (or very few) of the territories he invaded actually accepted German rule. All the rest of Europe considered themselves "occupied".
Conquering terrain with your military is easy to do. Conquering the people living there, making them happy and accept your rule as the new, legitimate government, that's the real challenge. It normally won't happen when the people you try to conquer were happy with their previous government. It only happens when they were happy to have their original government overthrown or when they did not have a government, and are happy with the new government. Then and only then did you "win" a war.
It took a few years of upgrades and revsions to turn it into the best piston-engined fighter of the war, but compare that initial design and development cycle to the years and even decades it takes to get anything built these days.
Being involved in a real war always helps speed up development of weaponry. Just look at the speed at which new weapon systems were developed in Germany, Britain and Russia during both WW1 and WW2.
I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
An invention may be the result of years of trying and trying, or the result of a bright spark - the latter usually after years and years of thinking about it, and at the very least knowing a lot about the subject at hand.
Independent invention just means there were two inventors trying to invent something (like on how to send sound over a long distance using electricity), and both managed to come with a solution, independent from one another. It doesn't make anything obvious.
Non-obviousness is anyway a really vague and ambiguous requirement of a patent. It's always very hard to say "Oh, that's obvious!" after seeing the patent - if it's so obvious, why didn't you think of it earlier, and, maybe, filed a patent for the idea?
Every charitable donation a corporation makes, is a PR move. They do it to make their company look good, give themselves a better image to help them sell more product, or to get something in return that benefits them like using existing bus stops.
Even if Google had done this before the whole furore started, it'd have been a PR move. It'd just have been less high profile.
And either way it's a good thing for all those low-income people that suddenly gain a lot more mobility.
Considering this is the US, the nearest malls are likely more than some 300 m (oh sorry, that'd be 900 ft for you guys) from the employee's home, and that means they'd need their car just to get to the bus stop, making the whole exercise moot. Besides I don't think those shopping malls like to have their car parks used as P+R.
Receipts I would always attach to an A4-sized paper (if not already that size), give it a serial number, enter it into my administration (GnuCash) using the actual date and add that serial number, and file it. As serial numbers are assigned while filing, no sorting needs to be done.
Years later I can easily find a transaction using GnuCash's search function, and find it in the file with the serial number.
Works like a charm.
And as long as you do this on a regular basis, the receipts end up in your administration more or less sorted by date as well.
Indeed... all the while running the risk that potential customers have only the experience of the free version, which turns them away from Windows forever: "No, thanks, I used Windows once, got it with a cheap laptop. It sucked so badly I asked a friend to install something else for me."
Rational or not, this is how people judge and remember products. Same accounts for Linux et.al. of course.
More than likely the licensing terms will prevent just this scenario to be any more legal than the current Win7 versions you can find on The Pirate Bay.
A while back I got "Cut the Rope", a rather interesting little puzzle game. Three free versions of the game, a few paid ones. I only have the free, ad-supported ones.
One of them they now have given me 100 candies, and every day can get maybe five more, or you have to buy. My kid likes to play it occasionally, I told him that when the 100 candies are finished (down to 60-something now) the game is going to be uninstalled. I can anyway use the space on my phone:-) And we still have two other episodes of the same game.
Of course they want to make money off of their work; however it's not that there is a lack of choice of stuff in the Play Store.
Another reason I'm missing a proper "power off" switch on many devices, besides the residual power use (wastes power, so wastes my money). One that physically, not electronically, breaks the power supply to the device. More and more of our devices do not have an "off" switch any more, it's really a "stand-by" switch. Of course that's convenient, as it's always listening for you to press the remote control "on" button for it to spring to life, it also means many other functions can be kept working secretly.
While there is no evidence that this happens on a big scale nowadays, as other comments mentioned (the telescreens from "1984", phones in the Soviet Union), it can be done either in fantasy or reality. Mobile phones are never off, they alway have to stay on to receive calls. And they carry cameras and a microphone. The laptop that I'm using now has a camera pointing at me, and it has a microphone. No way to physically switch them off, short of opening the device and cutting the wires.
At least something like "we think that it contained music", as no-one verified that it really is an infringing track. That's part of the issue with your message.
And it's also not "will not license" as GEMA has made an offer to license it to YouTube, and presumably YouTube made a counter offer, and for whatever reason they can not agree to the licensing terms. So "YouTube will not license" would be as true as "GEMA will not license".
Ironically if Youtube had made it say "GEMA are a bunch of fat jerks" it would've been perfectly defensible.
Close.
It should have said something like "we think GEMA are a bunch of fat jerks" to make clear it is an opinion, not a fact, and then it'd be defensible under freedom of expression rights.
The way you state it, it is presented as a fact, in which case GEMA can sue for defamation. Which is exactly what they did in the actual case, as the Google message is presented as a fact, which GEMA thought (and the court agreed with) to be untrue.
"This video has been removed due to containing Music Licensed by GEMA"
That statement is false, and should never be used for a blocking notice. Blocking is done automatically without anyone verifying it really contains infringing music. It is also NOT licensed by GEMA, which is the whole point of the issue, that licensing agreement is not there.
From TFA I understand that not only did they ran a computer simulation, they actually wrote the worm and ran it in a controlled environment, observing it spreading between access points.
Have it ping a specific site, telling that site "Hi, I'm totally fine!" which is a code word for "pwned!"
Just make sure it is using normal communications channels and your regular AV software, that doesn't know this specific signature yet, won't be able to detect it.
And in the "production" version you have it do something else entirely of course.
I'd say that there isn't really any way that this could work anywhere except in a lab. As a very badly designed "experiment".
A city it won't work, too many different wifi routers, too many software versions. Unless a certain make and model would be so dominating that you'd always have one nearby. Netgear and LinkSys may have such penetration, I see those names all over the place.
However it may work better within a large company as there they often use a single type of device, to keep maintenance easier. Those are also likely to be at the same patch level, contain the same backdoors and other vulnerabilities, and may even have the same (even if non-default) password. That may just work. Add to that initial remote infection over the Internet and the scenario becomes rather plausible.
Not easy, but considering we also had Stuxnet, it is definitely plausible.
The one part that I still don't get though is the actual spreading, as normally those wifi routers do not talk to one another, at all. Or is this part of what the firmware does; instead of being an access point making it act like a device, so it can connect to another access point?
Yes I read TFA, not the technical report though. Too technical for me.
It says the virus works by replacing the firmware of wifi routers. That sounds to me like they're tricking the router into accepting an over-the-air update. Which I suppose is limited to 1) a specific make and type of router and 2) knowing the OTA password for that router (or using a default that's not changed). So that sounds plausible for certain specific networks, not where there is a large number of different routers with different firmware and different passwords (or other security vulnerabilities).
What is not explained at all though is how the thing jumps from router to router, and I can't really think of a way this may happen. These things normally do not communicate wiht one another, and devices normally communicate to only one router at the time. Can anyone with deeper understanding explain this?
Slashdot Mirror
The total amount of energy stored is much larger per cycle - about five times as much. So 200 recharges for a LiS battery would give as much play time on your phone as 1,000 recharges on a Li-ion battery (the typical lifetime of such a battery). With the loss of capacity that may be 250 recharges for the LiS battery, with it still going strong after all that time.
So what're they waiting for? Life time is more than good enough already! I want one of these batteries! Much better than having to recharge my phone every single day!
When looking at electronics recently, specifically little ICs, they always specified the power usage in units of current.
It seems that the reason is that semiconductor ICs can handle a broad range of voltages, like 3V-15V, and use roughly the same current at the whole range. As long as your supply voltage is in that range, the components are happy. The same when powering LEDs, they need a certain current, and any supply voltage will do as long as it is high enough (you always have to add a resistor to regulate the current).
So giving power capacity of a battery used for supplying power to semiconductors in mAh is not exactly strange.
Just reading TFA (the museum one) would have told you it was never meant to be a fighter, but a racer.
A derived military model was supposed to be a light pursuit aircraft, the 110P (still not a fighter). It was never finished, and as such never built.
TFA mentions the use of two car racing engines, each 8-cyclinder, 8-liter, 490 hp.
It was meant to be a racer, so I guess ceiling didn't matter much (so no turbochargers or so to compress the air). 1,000 hp with a mere 16-liter cylinder space, sounds like a good deal compared to the other two engines, if all you care about is raw power and speed.
In the modern age of computer simulations (designers knew the A380 and Dreamliner jets would not only be able to fly, but also had a good idea on how they would behave, before they even moulded the first part of it), I do expect that they already tested that all out in a virtual wind tunnel. Weren't those modern performance enhancing wing tip designs invented in computer simulations?
I've to admit to not being an aircraft designer/builder, but if I were to pick up such a project as hobby, it's the first part I'd look into. Will it fly? How will it behave? What forces can we expect, and will the airframe be able to handle it? This in turn should also give a reasonable estimate on top speeds.
Hitler lost the day he started the war, for the simple reason that none (or very few) of the territories he invaded actually accepted German rule. All the rest of Europe considered themselves "occupied".
Conquering terrain with your military is easy to do. Conquering the people living there, making them happy and accept your rule as the new, legitimate government, that's the real challenge. It normally won't happen when the people you try to conquer were happy with their previous government. It only happens when they were happy to have their original government overthrown or when they did not have a government, and are happy with the new government. Then and only then did you "win" a war.
It took a few years of upgrades and revsions to turn it into the best piston-engined fighter of the war, but compare that initial design and development cycle to the years and even decades it takes to get anything built these days.
Being involved in a real war always helps speed up development of weaponry. Just look at the speed at which new weapon systems were developed in Germany, Britain and Russia during both WW1 and WW2.
I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
An invention may be the result of years of trying and trying, or the result of a bright spark - the latter usually after years and years of thinking about it, and at the very least knowing a lot about the subject at hand.
Independent invention just means there were two inventors trying to invent something (like on how to send sound over a long distance using electricity), and both managed to come with a solution, independent from one another. It doesn't make anything obvious.
Non-obviousness is anyway a really vague and ambiguous requirement of a patent. It's always very hard to say "Oh, that's obvious!" after seeing the patent - if it's so obvious, why didn't you think of it earlier, and, maybe, filed a patent for the idea?
Every charitable donation a corporation makes, is a PR move. They do it to make their company look good, give themselves a better image to help them sell more product, or to get something in return that benefits them like using existing bus stops.
Even if Google had done this before the whole furore started, it'd have been a PR move. It'd just have been less high profile.
And either way it's a good thing for all those low-income people that suddenly gain a lot more mobility.
Considering this is the US, the nearest malls are likely more than some 300 m (oh sorry, that'd be 900 ft for you guys) from the employee's home, and that means they'd need their car just to get to the bus stop, making the whole exercise moot. Besides I don't think those shopping malls like to have their car parks used as P+R.
Receipts I would always attach to an A4-sized paper (if not already that size), give it a serial number, enter it into my administration (GnuCash) using the actual date and add that serial number, and file it. As serial numbers are assigned while filing, no sorting needs to be done.
Years later I can easily find a transaction using GnuCash's search function, and find it in the file with the serial number.
Works like a charm.
And as long as you do this on a regular basis, the receipts end up in your administration more or less sorted by date as well.
The amount of money made that way will be much less than their current business model, even if it may be more sustainable in the long run.
Try explaining that to the share holders who have to take an >80% loss on their shares as the value of the company plummets with the drop in revenues.
MS is in for a hard time. A really hard time. Pretty much anything else they have is loss-making.
Indeed... all the while running the risk that potential customers have only the experience of the free version, which turns them away from Windows forever: "No, thanks, I used Windows once, got it with a cheap laptop. It sucked so badly I asked a friend to install something else for me."
Rational or not, this is how people judge and remember products. Same accounts for Linux et.al. of course.
More than likely the licensing terms will prevent just this scenario to be any more legal than the current Win7 versions you can find on The Pirate Bay.
Absolutely.
A while back I got "Cut the Rope", a rather interesting little puzzle game. Three free versions of the game, a few paid ones. I only have the free, ad-supported ones.
One of them they now have given me 100 candies, and every day can get maybe five more, or you have to buy. My kid likes to play it occasionally, I told him that when the 100 candies are finished (down to 60-something now) the game is going to be uninstalled. I can anyway use the space on my phone :-) And we still have two other episodes of the same game.
Of course they want to make money off of their work; however it's not that there is a lack of choice of stuff in the Play Store.
Another reason I'm missing a proper "power off" switch on many devices, besides the residual power use (wastes power, so wastes my money). One that physically, not electronically, breaks the power supply to the device. More and more of our devices do not have an "off" switch any more, it's really a "stand-by" switch. Of course that's convenient, as it's always listening for you to press the remote control "on" button for it to spring to life, it also means many other functions can be kept working secretly.
While there is no evidence that this happens on a big scale nowadays, as other comments mentioned (the telescreens from "1984", phones in the Soviet Union), it can be done either in fantasy or reality. Mobile phones are never off, they alway have to stay on to receive calls. And they carry cameras and a microphone. The laptop that I'm using now has a camera pointing at me, and it has a microphone. No way to physically switch them off, short of opening the device and cutting the wires.
At least something like "we think that it contained music", as no-one verified that it really is an infringing track. That's part of the issue with your message.
And it's also not "will not license" as GEMA has made an offer to license it to YouTube, and presumably YouTube made a counter offer, and for whatever reason they can not agree to the licensing terms. So "YouTube will not license" would be as true as "GEMA will not license".
Ironically if Youtube had made it say "GEMA are a bunch of fat jerks" it would've been perfectly defensible.
Close.
It should have said something like "we think GEMA are a bunch of fat jerks" to make clear it is an opinion, not a fact, and then it'd be defensible under freedom of expression rights.
The way you state it, it is presented as a fact, in which case GEMA can sue for defamation. Which is exactly what they did in the actual case, as the Google message is presented as a fact, which GEMA thought (and the court agreed with) to be untrue.
"This video has been removed due to containing Music Licensed by GEMA"
That statement is false, and should never be used for a blocking notice. Blocking is done automatically without anyone verifying it really contains infringing music. It is also NOT licensed by GEMA, which is the whole point of the issue, that licensing agreement is not there.
From TFA I understand that not only did they ran a computer simulation, they actually wrote the worm and ran it in a controlled environment, observing it spreading between access points.
Have it ping a specific site, telling that site "Hi, I'm totally fine!" which is a code word for "pwned!"
Just make sure it is using normal communications channels and your regular AV software, that doesn't know this specific signature yet, won't be able to detect it.
And in the "production" version you have it do something else entirely of course.
I'd say that there isn't really any way that this could work anywhere except in a lab. As a very badly designed "experiment".
A city it won't work, too many different wifi routers, too many software versions. Unless a certain make and model would be so dominating that you'd always have one nearby. Netgear and LinkSys may have such penetration, I see those names all over the place.
However it may work better within a large company as there they often use a single type of device, to keep maintenance easier. Those are also likely to be at the same patch level, contain the same backdoors and other vulnerabilities, and may even have the same (even if non-default) password. That may just work. Add to that initial remote infection over the Internet and the scenario becomes rather plausible.
Not easy, but considering we also had Stuxnet, it is definitely plausible.
The one part that I still don't get though is the actual spreading, as normally those wifi routers do not talk to one another, at all. Or is this part of what the firmware does; instead of being an access point making it act like a device, so it can connect to another access point?
Yes I read TFA, not the technical report though. Too technical for me.
It says the virus works by replacing the firmware of wifi routers. That sounds to me like they're tricking the router into accepting an over-the-air update. Which I suppose is limited to 1) a specific make and type of router and 2) knowing the OTA password for that router (or using a default that's not changed). So that sounds plausible for certain specific networks, not where there is a large number of different routers with different firmware and different passwords (or other security vulnerabilities).
What is not explained at all though is how the thing jumps from router to router, and I can't really think of a way this may happen. These things normally do not communicate wiht one another, and devices normally communicate to only one router at the time. Can anyone with deeper understanding explain this?