Will it be lighter when you load it down with enough batteries to afford it a 100 mile range? I doubt it. Another serious issue is where that weight is going to be distributed. Cars like the Prius and its ilk tend to have lower floors (like a van almost) to hold the batteries, beefier suspension and benefit also from computer designs to distribute the weight properly, such as along the centre of the vehicle between the passengers. I assume any Delorean EV is going to have to stick it's batteries wherever its retrofitted design allows. I also think the added weight would seriously affect the way it performed & handled and not in a good way.
The point is that all those batteries you need to put in your EV add plenty of weight. If the chassis were atypically heavy (and I have no idea if a Delorean is), then it turns your EV into a tank. And weight = lower range. Therefore you want your EV to as light as possible.
Personally I think the Delorean has always been a deeply ugly vehicle and the "brochure" for the EV variant suggests the trim and build quality has not improved in the intervening years. It looks bad, like kit car bad. Not surprising if they're cobbled together from old parts.
It'd be the last toy because after the kid has his fingers chopped off and his face decorated with spurts of molten plastic, the courts will put a supervision order around your access to him.
So it's okay to commit crimes against giant corporations and expect leniency? Why do you suppose that? If anything it seems like a surefire way to attract heat given that a motivated corporation has the resources and contacts to make sure that the authorities prosecute you.
It probably means these companies already have SoCs they use for this stuff (and may have a stakeholding in) and see no reason for ditching what they have for something produced by Intel.
As I said, give them a large notice period and a schedule and then disable the old protocols by default in browsers. Users can still enable the old protocols but suddenly browsers become secure by default. It wouldn't stop sites downgrading to older protocols for older browsers but it would hugely diminish the attack surface and vulnerability going forward.
And yes it can work assuming the major browser companies were united behind a single plan. Sites would have to change and the large majority would change. And those that didn't... well tough good luck handling the support calls.
Security transitions happen all the time, e.g. Sky TV sends out new decoder cards every few years, provides an overlap period to cover the changeover and then kills the old cards. Browsers have got to start coordinating some security changes too.
Server admins sure as hell will implement a later TLS if suddenly they're inundated with users complaining that various browsers refuse to connect to the site. The smart admins won't be caught out like that. The lazier ones will have to advise users to reenable TLS/SSL temporarily while they get off their asses and fix the thing they had ample warning was about to happen. That's why it needs to be broadcast loud and clear.
As for which browsers implement what, the point is if all browser vendors act in a coordinated fashion on security issues, they'll shape web security a lot faster than acting independently, implementing a patchwork of protocols, and wondering why sites stick with the lowest common denominator.
It's a chicken and egg issue and one that browsers need to force. If the major browser vendors were to multilaterally declare that sites had a 18 month period of grace to support TLS 1.1 / 1.2 after which SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 would default to off, then you can sure as hell bet things would start kicking up a gear. Meanwhile browser vendors need to actually implement TLS 1.1 and 1.2 so they can give sites something to test against.
It looks like the filter looks for images which have been taken by slow ccds or similar where someone moves the camera / phone while they're taking the pic. The image is in focus but the exposure time is so long it gets smeared. The analysis appears to figure out how the camera was moving during the image capture and reverse that. It's very clever but it would be nice to see some genuine before & after shot without someone's shakey audience cam, YouTube encode on top. Also, the issue of "parameters" would be nice to understand. After all, I could supply some "parameters" to transform 1 bit of data and into the complete works of Shakespeare. Some fine tuning parameters are okay but if it's dozens or hundreds then maybe not so much.
As long as it's restricted to purely cosmetic stuff. If someone wants to buy a pimp hat to complete their image, well go knock yourself out, buy that pimp hat. Or if some corp wants their fleet to be fabulous pink, well go ahead and buy it.
The problem comes for a subscription service when the premium content isn't just cosmetic but puts people who pay extra at an advantage. For example perhaps someone could buy boosters that speed up production, or learning, or reduce overheads. And anyone who chooses not to pay ends up a second class citizen.
Obviously if Eve were F2P it wouldn't be an issue, after all the entire F2P model is in selling stuff on an a la carte basis. But it's subscription based and the players are so hard core that I doubt F2P would even work without substantial changes, possibly a separate universe to accommodate them. As such, CCP should stop trying to screw their player base over. Sell the cosmetic shit but drawn a line on the ground and do not step over it.
Sony's name was i.LINK but yeah. Stupid name. According to Wikipedia even Texas Instruments was involved and called their impl Lynx. Firewire was the prominent name and IMO would have been a perfectly acceptable moniker for the whole tech assuming the parties had cooperated.
I think Firewire was a pretty memorable name, definitely better than i.Link or IEEE1394. Irrespective, splitting the same tech into 3 different names was confusing. USB has certainly had a pile of confusion but nothing to this extent.
The funny part is if Apple, Sony could agree on a single connector and a single name for the tech they might have enjoyed a lot wider recognition and support for the tech than they did.
I like the idea of thunderbolt too. I just hate the execution. It was supposed to be optical and now it's not. It was supposed to be an interconnect bus that all other protocols and ports could ride on, now it's just for crappy displayport and PCI express. It incurs expensive daisy chaining circuitry and ports in every device that implements it. It's been gimped and the move to copper has resulted in expensive active cables with shorter lengths.
Maybe when optical Thunderbolt does appear and relieves some of these limitations it might be more favourably received and able to separate itself from USB. As it stands I doubt many people could justify the expense of the cables and the implementing hardware when an alternative exists which is capable of high (enough) speeds for much less cost.
Well sure perhaps it's all some gambit to put pressure on Intel to offer better deals or cave to other demands. Perhaps it's just an experiment to see if it's even feasible. But I think it's quite feasible and quite desirable if it allows them to put something between the price of a tablet and full MacBook. If Microsoft are taking the risk then I see no reason that Apple wouldn't.
As for what happens to Intel Macbooks if an ARM version appeared, I have no idea. Depends how they sold. I certainly don't see it beyond the realms of possibility that the development tools could be sold through app store and with developer keys if necessary.
As I said, Intel OS X probably can't be locked down, it has legacy apps to support. The same is absolutely not true of an ARM version if it appears. Apple could screw around with it any way they see fit because they're not going to break anything. Same applies to Windows 8 when it turns up on ARM - MS will take chance to restrict it if they can.
As for GPL, no you can't host GPLv3 apps on the app store because of DRM used by the store. And even for older GPL / opensource apps, why should someone be required to pay $100 to Apple and subject to the arbitrary rules of approval simply because Apple have shut all other avenues of distribution?
People such as myself are able to observe how app store has been made extremely prominent in OS X, observe how Apple announced plans for ARM, observe how ARM has no legacy / backwards compatibility issues to worry about and observe how Apple has behaved on iOS. The reality is ARM provides the perfect opportunity to produce a locked down iOS / OS X mashup device and nothing in Apple's character suggests they won't do it. I'm sure developers will get supported in one way or another, probably by being required to develop on more expensive Intel Macs while they still exist.
And more fool you if you believe Apple won't try and get away with it if they can.
It's only natural that since OS X is built over a BSD variant that there will be bits of Unix underneath for people to use. And Apple has certainly helped promote open source way more than Microsoft ever did (e.g. clang, webkit, cups etc.).
However that doesn't forgive some of the shit they've pulled with iOS and which they presumably wish to extend into OS X proper. I fully expect that when OS X makes the leap to ARM that you'll suddenly find it is as closed and proprietary as iOS is. The app store will become the only way to buy or install apps and things like the terminal app simply won't exist at all. Microsoft will probably do something similar with their ARM port too. Neither will have worry about pissing off people with legacy apps because the apps wouldn't run on the new platform anyway.
The Daily Telegraph did an obituary which went over some of his life in an unflattering way. Naturally some commenters wigged out that the obit could suggest their beloved Steve was actually a bit of an asshole.
When I read the headline I thought the guy was trying through genetic algorithms or similar to demonstrate that something as complex as the works of Shakespeare could be "bred" through randomness (as Dawkins suggested in one of his books). Turns out the guy was just generating random numbers and every time a random number matched a part of the works he crossed it off the list and went onto the next part. I'm struggling to understand why. To me it ranks right up there with the bible code on the pointlessness scale.
Of course there are military uses for atomic weapons. If you know your enemy is massing troops in some area you drop a huge frigging bomb on them annihilating / severely disrupting their ability to wage war. Or you drop a bomb on their oil fields, naval docks, train depots, industrial zones or whatever.
Aside from that, it is not unreasonable given the alternatives to believe the bombings shortened the war and saved more lives (civilian and military) than they cost. That is no consolation at all to the people who died prolongued, agonizing deaths or suffered the rest of their lives with horrible burns or other effects. But it's still the likely result of using them.
So I am not really surprised that the US sought to drop them, or convinced by the moral arguments that they shouldn't have given the situation they were in.
Android covered the entire spectrum. There were a lot of high end phones and there were a lot of cheaper, slower phones. Literally there were phones to cover every taste, requirement and budget. And the same is clearly happening for tablets too but it would be a lot faster if Google released their source code and the 4.x compatible device specs and got all common tablets up to the same level of API and broad compatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Will it be lighter when you load it down with enough batteries to afford it a 100 mile range? I doubt it. Another serious issue is where that weight is going to be distributed. Cars like the Prius and its ilk tend to have lower floors (like a van almost) to hold the batteries, beefier suspension and benefit also from computer designs to distribute the weight properly, such as along the centre of the vehicle between the passengers. I assume any Delorean EV is going to have to stick it's batteries wherever its retrofitted design allows. I also think the added weight would seriously affect the way it performed & handled and not in a good way.
Personally I think the Delorean has always been a deeply ugly vehicle and the "brochure" for the EV variant suggests the trim and build quality has not improved in the intervening years. It looks bad, like kit car bad. Not surprising if they're cobbled together from old parts.
Yeah it's their free time and it's still deeply sad.
It's a phone. People are camping out for a fucking phone.
It'd be the last toy because after the kid has his fingers chopped off and his face decorated with spurts of molten plastic, the courts will put a supervision order around your access to him.
So it's okay to commit crimes against giant corporations and expect leniency? Why do you suppose that? If anything it seems like a surefire way to attract heat given that a motivated corporation has the resources and contacts to make sure that the authorities prosecute you.
OK, geeky people, what does that mean?
It probably means these companies already have SoCs they use for this stuff (and may have a stakeholding in) and see no reason for ditching what they have for something produced by Intel.
WoW's transition to F2P begins. It'll probably be a better game for it too.
And yes it can work assuming the major browser companies were united behind a single plan. Sites would have to change and the large majority would change. And those that didn't... well tough good luck handling the support calls.
Security transitions happen all the time, e.g. Sky TV sends out new decoder cards every few years, provides an overlap period to cover the changeover and then kills the old cards. Browsers have got to start coordinating some security changes too.
As for which browsers implement what, the point is if all browser vendors act in a coordinated fashion on security issues, they'll shape web security a lot faster than acting independently, implementing a patchwork of protocols, and wondering why sites stick with the lowest common denominator.
It's a chicken and egg issue and one that browsers need to force. If the major browser vendors were to multilaterally declare that sites had a 18 month period of grace to support TLS 1.1 / 1.2 after which SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 would default to off, then you can sure as hell bet things would start kicking up a gear. Meanwhile browser vendors need to actually implement TLS 1.1 and 1.2 so they can give sites something to test against.
It looks like the filter looks for images which have been taken by slow ccds or similar where someone moves the camera / phone while they're taking the pic. The image is in focus but the exposure time is so long it gets smeared. The analysis appears to figure out how the camera was moving during the image capture and reverse that. It's very clever but it would be nice to see some genuine before & after shot without someone's shakey audience cam, YouTube encode on top. Also, the issue of "parameters" would be nice to understand. After all, I could supply some "parameters" to transform 1 bit of data and into the complete works of Shakespeare. Some fine tuning parameters are okay but if it's dozens or hundreds then maybe not so much.
The problem comes for a subscription service when the premium content isn't just cosmetic but puts people who pay extra at an advantage. For example perhaps someone could buy boosters that speed up production, or learning, or reduce overheads. And anyone who chooses not to pay ends up a second class citizen.
Obviously if Eve were F2P it wouldn't be an issue, after all the entire F2P model is in selling stuff on an a la carte basis. But it's subscription based and the players are so hard core that I doubt F2P would even work without substantial changes, possibly a separate universe to accommodate them. As such, CCP should stop trying to screw their player base over. Sell the cosmetic shit but drawn a line on the ground and do not step over it.
Sony's name was i.LINK but yeah. Stupid name. According to Wikipedia even Texas Instruments was involved and called their impl Lynx. Firewire was the prominent name and IMO would have been a perfectly acceptable moniker for the whole tech assuming the parties had cooperated.
I think Firewire was a pretty memorable name, definitely better than i.Link or IEEE1394. Irrespective, splitting the same tech into 3 different names was confusing. USB has certainly had a pile of confusion but nothing to this extent.
The funny part is if Apple, Sony could agree on a single connector and a single name for the tech they might have enjoyed a lot wider recognition and support for the tech than they did.
Maybe when optical Thunderbolt does appear and relieves some of these limitations it might be more favourably received and able to separate itself from USB. As it stands I doubt many people could justify the expense of the cables and the implementing hardware when an alternative exists which is capable of high (enough) speeds for much less cost.
As for what happens to Intel Macbooks if an ARM version appeared, I have no idea. Depends how they sold. I certainly don't see it beyond the realms of possibility that the development tools could be sold through app store and with developer keys if necessary.
As for GPL, no you can't host GPLv3 apps on the app store because of DRM used by the store. And even for older GPL / opensource apps, why should someone be required to pay $100 to Apple and subject to the arbitrary rules of approval simply because Apple have shut all other avenues of distribution?
And more fool you if you believe Apple won't try and get away with it if they can.
However that doesn't forgive some of the shit they've pulled with iOS and which they presumably wish to extend into OS X proper. I fully expect that when OS X makes the leap to ARM that you'll suddenly find it is as closed and proprietary as iOS is. The app store will become the only way to buy or install apps and things like the terminal app simply won't exist at all. Microsoft will probably do something similar with their ARM port too. Neither will have worry about pissing off people with legacy apps because the apps wouldn't run on the new platform anyway.
The Daily Telegraph did an obituary which went over some of his life in an unflattering way. Naturally some commenters wigged out that the obit could suggest their beloved Steve was actually a bit of an asshole.
When I read the headline I thought the guy was trying through genetic algorithms or similar to demonstrate that something as complex as the works of Shakespeare could be "bred" through randomness (as Dawkins suggested in one of his books). Turns out the guy was just generating random numbers and every time a random number matched a part of the works he crossed it off the list and went onto the next part. I'm struggling to understand why. To me it ranks right up there with the bible code on the pointlessness scale.
Aside from that, it is not unreasonable given the alternatives to believe the bombings shortened the war and saved more lives (civilian and military) than they cost. That is no consolation at all to the people who died prolongued, agonizing deaths or suffered the rest of their lives with horrible burns or other effects. But it's still the likely result of using them.
So I am not really surprised that the US sought to drop them, or convinced by the moral arguments that they shouldn't have given the situation they were in.
Android covered the entire spectrum. There were a lot of high end phones and there were a lot of cheaper, slower phones. Literally there were phones to cover every taste, requirement and budget. And the same is clearly happening for tablets too but it would be a lot faster if Google released their source code and the 4.x compatible device specs and got all common tablets up to the same level of API and broad compatibility.