Even taking into account losses on the wire and potential AC/DC conversion losses, the efficiency of a power plant vastly outstrips that of any single vehicle's engine.
By separating power production from power usage, you don't have to upgrade everything at once. If the vehicle produces the power, and you want to upgrade, you have to replace the entire fleet. If the vehicle runs on electricity, you can replace the power plant and suddenly all the vehicles are cleaner. And you don't have to do it all at once; most power grids are supplied by multiple plants, so over time you can slowly increase the proportion of clean energy used to drive the vehicle as old coal plants are decommissioned and replaced with newer, presumably cleaner technologies.
Electrics run smoother, with less vibration and less gunk from the burned fuel gumming up the works. So they would presumably last longer.
Speed can matter for video, particularly on higher quality settings. For example, using Windows Media Center with "Best" quality, according to MS's website, 60 GB will hold about 22 hours of video, which equates to about ~0.8 MB/s. If you are recording two shows with a dual tuner and watching a third that you already recorded, you're up to ~2.4 MB/s total throughput. If you aren't swimming in RAM for the disk cache, the HD head is going to be losing a lot to seek and rotational latency.
Since a lot of home users only have one HD, the OS is going to be chewing throughput, as will the page file, and both will increase latency further. It all adds up. Not everyone installs 6 HDs with specialized purposes the way a geek (such as myself) does.
Heck, if you're really nice, you might even mention the Do Not Call registry on your message. I don't know if they were scammers, but I was receiving 3-6 calls per day from the extended auto warranty pushers when I first signed up for my land line. 30-40 days after signing up for Do Not Call they stopped calling. It doesn't help you personally, but callers might appreciate it if they don't already know about it.
One thing people might try is call screening via an old-style answering machine. Prominently note at the beginning of the message that "Scammers are fraudulently pretending to call from this number. I can do nothing about it, and I am sorry it is happening." Should shame most callers into hanging up, and you only need to deal with callers who hang long enough to leave a message.
Whitelisting numbers you want to receive calls from might help, but you run the risk of blocking legit calls from unexpected numbers.
If you have decently configurable voice mail settings (I use ViaTalk and they offer this option) you might set up a whitelist of numbers (or area codes) that trigger a ring, and have everything else go direct to your voicemail with a similar message.
Way to post a useless semantics argument. I'm sure your dog thinks you're a genius. Have you noticed that "ethnicism" hasn't really caught on? "Race" and "racism" are commonly accepted, if not necessarily perfectly defined terms that are appropriate for the topic at hand. Come back when you have something to offer beyond pointless blather.
Those who cry the loudest about unfair or illegal acts are just as guility cause they would do it too.
Wow... Projecting much? Some of us actually believe that a government listening in on the communications of its own citizens without probable cause is a problem. Where do you get off assuming that we're all closet fascists?
Not to be overly sarcastic, but what non-American uses "y'all"? It's relatively rare outside the American South (I grew up in Maryland, and I'm embarrassed that I occasionally use it non-ironically).
No. The quantum case allows you to send a complete one-time pad, while making you aware of eavesdropping, so you can discard it if someone else sees it. There is a lot of waste, in that you more than double your bandwidth requirements (since the quantum key exchange is costly in bandwidth terms), but in exchange you can send a new one-time pad for every message, without the annoyance of exchanging disks full of random bits. Of course, the system fails if someone eavesdrops continuously.
The authentication and secret sharing would occur after key exchange previously described, but with authentication being prerequisite to any data transmission, and secret sharing (for a new session later on) occurring either before or after data transmission.
Good lord. You found a way to reference appeasement that doesn't involve Nazis or Hitler. Are you trying to break Godwin's, or intentionally provoking it by giving me an opening for this response?
Actually, racist would be if you used race as a proxy for judgment on characteristics unrelated to their race. If he finds the actual physical characteristics common to Chinese women more appealing (e.g. skin tone, hair color and character, cheekbones, etc.), it's not racist.
Now if he made comments about liking ethnically Chinese women for their advanced math skills, that would be racial prejudice with a rosy positive spin, but you needn't jump to racism simply because he *mentioned* race. Sheesh.
Because if you learn the shared secret (by brute force cracking), and log the communications, you can eventually crack the whole system, permanently.
With quantum key exchange, the shared secret isn't derivable from the key exchange (you use it to verify after connecting, under 100% unbreakable encryption, since it's effectively a one-time pad).
The difference is in forward protection of your data. With normal key exchange, someone can eventually work out the key through brute force or some other means. One-time pads that are only used one time can't be cracked by definition, so a secret communication remains secret even if Moore's Law speeds up by another level of exponentiation.
You're a bit off. It's possible if there is no shared initial secret, but each session can establish an initial secret for the next session, so you only need to exchange a single secret up front, and once it is used, your new secrets distribute themselves as part of your communications. Take a look at Quantum crypto attacks for a more in-depth exploration.
Umm... Not to rain on your parade, but David Brooks is an archetypal neoconservative. His opinion pieces have nothing to do with the political leanings of the New York Times. Secondly, the New York Times, with few exceptions, is still one of the most reliable and trustworthy sources of new out there. While it may have a liberal bent, and the Jayson Blair scandal tarnished it's reputation, it is still a far better source of news than any of the 24 hour news networks.
Mods with a sense of humor have demonstrated the weirdness of the current system. I post with a base karma of 2. As I type, my original post has a karma of 1, Insightful. So apparently, despite an overall down mod, I still have a positive karma title.
Before I learned the system, I thought moderation that looked like that meant that a poster with poor base karma had, for once, posted something worthwhile (or a moderator clicked wrong). Only after I became eligible to moderate did I learn that system is designed to allow this sort of counter-intuitive result.
Possible, but problematic. sudo doesn't modify it globally if I recall, just for apps launched out of the same window. Don't know about Apple's mechanism. If it was actually global, user level malware would just have to wait for a privilege escalation before performing their nastiness.
It does elevate the process and all sub-processes (thus, launching an Admin command prompt will allow you to launch anything else as Admin), but frequently programs are designed so a number of sub-processes perform privileged tasks, while the parent does nothing. Possibly a fix to up the privilege of the process group as well as all child processes might work, but it still opens a hole.
If you like that approach, you can do it via GP. The default behavior has to work for your average home user, while sysadmins can configure it however they like.
Will never happen (barring a complete OS reset, a la the MS Research Singularity/Midori project). People would be complaining a hell of a lot more if their old favorite apps stopped working completely (or worked massively slower under VirtualPC). Clicking through a dialog once per program launch, even a somewhat disruptive one, is better than breaking a program or slowing it down for the entire period of use. And can you imagine the complaints about resources if Vista ran a sandbox VM for every bad program?
Only one guy hit you with a Troll mod. You'll probably get modded to hell for your response, but with luck fair minded Mod may correct the unfair original moderation.
I agree mostly for the same reasons. Shame you got modded Troll for saying it. I run it on my dev machine at work and at home on my gaming machine. Once the drivers were up to spec (about 4 months after release), I never had the least complaint. Performance is on par with XP x64 (maybe 5% slower than XP x86). The only time I've had a blue screen (once the drivers stabilized) is when I tried to overclock my graphics card too far. I almost never hit LUA. For the few tasks I run as Admin with any frequency (e.g. Disk Cleanup), I set up Task Scheduler shortcuts to bypass it. It's been a breeze.
Perhaps requiring those mods to actually apply to a previous mod would make sense? So you select "Overrated" and then choose to use it to cancel an "Insightful" mod? It is a bit weird that a post can be Overrated or Underrated if noone has actually rated it.
Okay, I don't usually like to question moderations, but Flamebait? Really? If you don't like that others modded it Insightful, hit it with an "Overrated" or "Redundant" (even if the similar posts weren't there when I started writing it) or something, but there was no intent to bait here.
I'll admit, I didn't click through the three links needed to find the ToS. Of course, it still gives very little information as to how the funding is distributed. The guarantee of IP rights is nice, if they honor it. Problem is, it's really hard to prove the origin of an idea. I can see this being a legal headache for Google, since any new work they do that happens to overlap a submitted idea will probably lead to litigation.
So who actually profits from this? Does Google sift the data and then start up in-house projects or do they run a program like the MacArthur genius grant, where the money is provided with little to no strings attached?
Given the earlier controversy over their EULAs containing clauses to forfeit all rights to your IP, this isn't just an idle question.
Slashdot Mirror
Speed can matter for video, particularly on higher quality settings. For example, using Windows Media Center with "Best" quality, according to MS's website, 60 GB will hold about 22 hours of video, which equates to about ~0.8 MB/s. If you are recording two shows with a dual tuner and watching a third that you already recorded, you're up to ~2.4 MB/s total throughput. If you aren't swimming in RAM for the disk cache, the HD head is going to be losing a lot to seek and rotational latency.
Since a lot of home users only have one HD, the OS is going to be chewing throughput, as will the page file, and both will increase latency further. It all adds up. Not everyone installs 6 HDs with specialized purposes the way a geek (such as myself) does.
Heck, if you're really nice, you might even mention the Do Not Call registry on your message. I don't know if they were scammers, but I was receiving 3-6 calls per day from the extended auto warranty pushers when I first signed up for my land line. 30-40 days after signing up for Do Not Call they stopped calling. It doesn't help you personally, but callers might appreciate it if they don't already know about it.
One thing people might try is call screening via an old-style answering machine. Prominently note at the beginning of the message that "Scammers are fraudulently pretending to call from this number. I can do nothing about it, and I am sorry it is happening." Should shame most callers into hanging up, and you only need to deal with callers who hang long enough to leave a message.
Whitelisting numbers you want to receive calls from might help, but you run the risk of blocking legit calls from unexpected numbers.
If you have decently configurable voice mail settings (I use ViaTalk and they offer this option) you might set up a whitelist of numbers (or area codes) that trigger a ring, and have everything else go direct to your voicemail with a similar message.
Way to post a useless semantics argument. I'm sure your dog thinks you're a genius. Have you noticed that "ethnicism" hasn't really caught on? "Race" and "racism" are commonly accepted, if not necessarily perfectly defined terms that are appropriate for the topic at hand. Come back when you have something to offer beyond pointless blather.
Those who cry the loudest about unfair or illegal acts are just as guility cause they would do it too.
Wow... Projecting much? Some of us actually believe that a government listening in on the communications of its own citizens without probable cause is a problem. Where do you get off assuming that we're all closet fascists?
Not to be overly sarcastic, but what non-American uses "y'all"? It's relatively rare outside the American South (I grew up in Maryland, and I'm embarrassed that I occasionally use it non-ironically).
Given that this does not affect personal computers, only corporate data stored about private individuals, how does this warrant a nannystate tag?
No. The quantum case allows you to send a complete one-time pad, while making you aware of eavesdropping, so you can discard it if someone else sees it. There is a lot of waste, in that you more than double your bandwidth requirements (since the quantum key exchange is costly in bandwidth terms), but in exchange you can send a new one-time pad for every message, without the annoyance of exchanging disks full of random bits. Of course, the system fails if someone eavesdrops continuously.
The authentication and secret sharing would occur after key exchange previously described, but with authentication being prerequisite to any data transmission, and secret sharing (for a new session later on) occurring either before or after data transmission.
Good lord. You found a way to reference appeasement that doesn't involve Nazis or Hitler. Are you trying to break Godwin's, or intentionally provoking it by giving me an opening for this response?
Actually, racist would be if you used race as a proxy for judgment on characteristics unrelated to their race. If he finds the actual physical characteristics common to Chinese women more appealing (e.g. skin tone, hair color and character, cheekbones, etc.), it's not racist.
Now if he made comments about liking ethnically Chinese women for their advanced math skills, that would be racial prejudice with a rosy positive spin, but you needn't jump to racism simply because he *mentioned* race. Sheesh.
Because if you learn the shared secret (by brute force cracking), and log the communications, you can eventually crack the whole system, permanently.
With quantum key exchange, the shared secret isn't derivable from the key exchange (you use it to verify after connecting, under 100% unbreakable encryption, since it's effectively a one-time pad).
The difference is in forward protection of your data. With normal key exchange, someone can eventually work out the key through brute force or some other means. One-time pads that are only used one time can't be cracked by definition, so a secret communication remains secret even if Moore's Law speeds up by another level of exponentiation.
You're a bit off. It's possible if there is no shared initial secret, but each session can establish an initial secret for the next session, so you only need to exchange a single secret up front, and once it is used, your new secrets distribute themselves as part of your communications. Take a look at Quantum crypto attacks for a more in-depth exploration.
Where the hell were Jews mentioned? Mod parent -1, Delusional.
I assume they mean some flavor of Perl 5, since the Perl didn't have objects prior to Perl 5. And Perl 5 released several years after Python.
Umm... Not to rain on your parade, but David Brooks is an archetypal neoconservative. His opinion pieces have nothing to do with the political leanings of the New York Times. Secondly, the New York Times, with few exceptions, is still one of the most reliable and trustworthy sources of new out there. While it may have a liberal bent, and the Jayson Blair scandal tarnished it's reputation, it is still a far better source of news than any of the 24 hour news networks.
Mods with a sense of humor have demonstrated the weirdness of the current system. I post with a base karma of 2. As I type, my original post has a karma of 1, Insightful. So apparently, despite an overall down mod, I still have a positive karma title.
Before I learned the system, I thought moderation that looked like that meant that a poster with poor base karma had, for once, posted something worthwhile (or a moderator clicked wrong). Only after I became eligible to moderate did I learn that system is designed to allow this sort of counter-intuitive result.
Only one guy hit you with a Troll mod. You'll probably get modded to hell for your response, but with luck fair minded Mod may correct the unfair original moderation.
I agree mostly for the same reasons. Shame you got modded Troll for saying it. I run it on my dev machine at work and at home on my gaming machine. Once the drivers were up to spec (about 4 months after release), I never had the least complaint. Performance is on par with XP x64 (maybe 5% slower than XP x86). The only time I've had a blue screen (once the drivers stabilized) is when I tried to overclock my graphics card too far. I almost never hit LUA. For the few tasks I run as Admin with any frequency (e.g. Disk Cleanup), I set up Task Scheduler shortcuts to bypass it. It's been a breeze.
Perhaps requiring those mods to actually apply to a previous mod would make sense? So you select "Overrated" and then choose to use it to cancel an "Insightful" mod? It is a bit weird that a post can be Overrated or Underrated if noone has actually rated it.
Okay, I don't usually like to question moderations, but Flamebait? Really? If you don't like that others modded it Insightful, hit it with an "Overrated" or "Redundant" (even if the similar posts weren't there when I started writing it) or something, but there was no intent to bait here.
I'll admit, I didn't click through the three links needed to find the ToS. Of course, it still gives very little information as to how the funding is distributed. The guarantee of IP rights is nice, if they honor it. Problem is, it's really hard to prove the origin of an idea. I can see this being a legal headache for Google, since any new work they do that happens to overlap a submitted idea will probably lead to litigation.
So who actually profits from this? Does Google sift the data and then start up in-house projects or do they run a program like the MacArthur genius grant, where the money is provided with little to no strings attached?
Given the earlier controversy over their EULAs containing clauses to forfeit all rights to your IP, this isn't just an idle question.
Well, given that security through obscurity is a doomed strategy, would that be so bad?