For example: in this case if you had already changed your router's IP address, it would be harder for the attackers to figure it out. For example if you use the 10.35.79.184, the same url that can exploit thousands of other dd-wrt routers (e.g. http://192.168.1.1/etcetc ), won't work on your router. So there has to be an attack specifically targeting you[1]. Which rarely happens unless you're famous or have made yourself infamous (or well-hated amongst hacker circles).
So you have more time to update your router or even have time to wait to see if the updates don't break other stuff first.
You're not as vulnerable to zero-day attacks as other people.
Same goes for putting running sshd servers on a different port. I could use port knocking or other other stuff, but so far running it on a different port works well enough for me.
I actually have my sshd server bound on an IP and port that's unreachable from outside, and my firewall has a rule to forward outside connections to it. This way if a mistake happens and my firewall rules get disabled/cleared, ssh and other crap from outside won't work.
[1] If a top hacker was targeting you specifically, they'd probably be able to pwn you.
For example: 1) I'm sure there are many zero-day browser/plugin exploits left (just look at how fast the pwn2own winners pwn stuff - they just sacrifice one of the zero-day exploits they have). 2) I doubt most ISPs have locked their BGP stuff down, so the attackers could use "BGP eavesdropping/prefix attacks" to hijack your connections.
With 1) and 2) you'd be merrily browsing your usual sites and pwned without noticing a thing- the hacker would just pass most of the traffic on, and just alter one or two connections to exploit the relevant browser bug.
The transplant thing has been observed, but so far I think it's only anecdotal evidence (maybe a bunch of people made stuff up, but so far I'll accept the reports on face value). Not aware of big research going on about it.
But I won't be surprised if scientists finally find out that your organs (or transplanted organs) can influence what sort of foods/drinks you'd want to consume[1], or even who you want to mate with. It does make some sense from an evolutionary advantage point of view.
And if your entire immune system can change after a liver transplant, it means you're not just getting a liver - it's not quite so "neat and clean" as that.
Who is the boss? From the point of view of the ENS, the "central nervous system" (aka brain/CNS) might just be a means to keeping the ENS satisfied.
ENS to CNS: "Hey CNS go eat a double cheese burger!". CNS: "Hmm, I feel like eating a double cheese burger, lets do a lot of complicated stuff like driving, walking etc so that I can eat that".
Of course the CNS could say, "Must resist, have to stick to diet".
While an electric vehicle doesn't have to idle, in many places you want to keep air-conditioning or heating on.
I believe the early electric/hybrid vehicles had crappy air-conditioning or they ran out of juice really quickly when you had it on:).
The MIT team said range of 320km. Is that with airconditioning on or off?
Apparently the Prius needs 2-5 kilowatts to power its airconditioning. 3 hours of air conditioning at full blast (hot day) = 15kWh ( 3 hours at 100kph = 300km),
The MIT team's proposed car battery stores about 60kWh. So that 15kWh is going to affect their range a lot more, compared to a vehicle with a 400-600kWh tank.
> So an EV that gets 100 miles on 33.6kWh of electricity has exactly the same efficiency as a gas powered car that gets 100mpg.
It's a bit messier than that. It could actually be somewhere in between 33.6kWh of electricity and 33.6kWh of coal/solar/nuclear since there are losses in conversion and transmission.
But if one does that then we'll have to take into account getting gasoline to the gas powered car etc...
Some people would also be more interested in "miles per dollar" and "miles per dollar excluding subsidies and other stuff".
If I'm wishing for pie-in-the-sky tech, I'd want hydrocarbon fuel-cells, and an efficient enough way for nuclear power plants to make hydrocarbons. Or even better battery/capacitor tech.
I'm for better tests. If better makes it harder, then so be it. But better does not necessarily mean harder, or too hard.
For example, one test could involve the driver being required to answer simple questions while driving (what is your name, date of birth, where were you born) and at the "right" moment they still have to stop in time - this could be done in a simulator for safety reasons. Another test could involve the examiner producing a sudden distraction - the driver must still maintain concentration.
Not staying in their lane without good reason = fail.
There should be a test involving merging safely and without too much inconvenience to other drivers (and the converse - allowing other drivers to merge).
Yet another test could involve the examiner giving directions to a destination. The driver must follow safe directions but handle unsafe directions properly - no last second swerves. There is a time limit to get to the place - so you can't ignore all directions.
To me most drivers have to deal with such cases, but many can't seem to handle them properly. So drivers should be trained to handle them safely, and be tested accordingly.
You should have read the last two paragraphs of my post too. But anyway I'll re-explain my point:
If you really want higher safety you either ban any cellphone use, or you require drivers to be better trained.
Drivers don't have to be able to make conversation when the driving gets difficult.
They just need to be able to be aware when "driving is getting difficult", and quickly focus 100% on driving when that happens.
Drivers should be trained to switch to concentrate 100% on driving when necessary.
Lastly, this applies even when the distractions aren't cellphone conversations. There are so many distractions that too many drivers prioritize over driving - their baby crying, a passenger dropping stuff on floor or a passenger saying "hey cool!". Drivers should be trained to ignore such stuff when concentration is needed, and leave them for later.
A passenger yelling "WATCH OUT!" could be critically important though;).
Heh, when you're under GA you normally have no idea what the surgeons talk about.
And often you don't want to:).
quote: "Kathy LaBrie of Nashua, N.H., also suffered awareness during surgery for a deviated septum. She said she heard "the sound of pushing and grinding and the surgeon talking to the nurses about the kind of car he had.... I tried moving my arms and legs -- I couldn't do anything. I thought I was dying."
Also, please read the rest of the post you replied to, especially the last two paragraphs.
"I on the other hand claim the real problem is poor training and skills. If you really want higher safety either you ban any cellphone use, or you require drivers to be better trained."
I apologize for writing a post too long and too unclear for you to read.
Because 5000x might not be much when you consider:
1) More people might want to do fancier stuff that require more power e.g. if everyone wanted cars (or their own mecha:) ).
Energy consumption per capita in GJ/year: Canada = 348.63 USA = 327.38 France= 189.77 Japan = 169.70 UK = 164.56 China = 47.81 India = 21.52 Indonesia = 31.81 Brazil = 44.84
So if the poorer but more populous countries tripled their energy consumption (add night lighting, airconditioning/heating, fridges, cars, skyscrapers, factories to supply all those goodies and it starts adding up really quickly), that "5000x the power we need" could become something like "1300x the power we need".
And if the population doubles, that drops to "700x the power we need".
2) There will be conversion losses. 50% efficiency = 350x the power we need. 10% efficiency = 70x the power we need. 3) We're not the only species on the planet that needs a share of that solar energy. There are way more than 5000 species on this planet.
Is that like some cops classifying "white guy walking into a black gangsta neighborhood while wearing a t-shirt with racially inflammatory words printed on it" as suicide, and some not?:)
> you don't need to think about being restricted to a schema, columns, types, to define identifiers for everything, to do explicit joins, etc. Just store your objects as they are in memory.
That's not a disadvantage in many cases, especially for the long term. There's a benefit of forcing people to use SQL to talk to the DB. It becomes a layer of abstraction, somewhat like a standard protocol or interface.
When you use SQL, your database can be used by 100 different people and programs, and when you add columns/fields, if the coders have been doing things properly (not assuming column order and number of columns), everything still works. When lots of things can use the same DB, that database often becomes more valuable and useful.
In contrast what does "Just store your objects as they are in memory" mean, when you have 100 different programs? What happens if a program needs a new data field attached to the returned object? Can the other 99 programs still work without changes? Or will some require a recompile since the DB is now returning a bigger/different object?
If you need recompile or modifications for stuff like that, that means only a few programs can share the same database (otherwise it becomes a maintenance nightmare), and that could limit the extent of how useful that database could be. You might then have to add layers of abstraction so that it becomes more accessible (and stays accessible) to many other programs. And one day one of those layers might end up looking like SQL;).
To quote myself: One man's impedance mismatch is another man's layer of abstraction.
1) You're still going to need something solid to keep the hot gases and gunk from escaping. 2) Even if you cover the whole top of the cylinder with the laser stuff, if some gunk ends up on the laser things are going to get nasty.
The other problem (not just free air).
When soot/gunk ends up on a spark plug the spark plug doesn't fail dramatically. When soot/gunk ends up on the exit point of the optical fibre, or some "window pane", or the laser itself, your "laser ignition" engine will lose more than just a few HP;).
So you'd probably have to diverge the beam a lot, have a huge window (or multiple windows) and focus it some point in the cylinder, so that random junk stuck on the window won't heat up and blow up.
Of course you could make the window very strong so that soot blowing up next to it won't break or wear it out. But if stuff is just igniting right at the window and not inside, I doubt the ignition will be much better than a spark plug.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Security through obscurity works.
For example: in this case if you had already changed your router's IP address, it would be harder for the attackers to figure it out. For example if you use the 10.35.79.184, the same url that can exploit thousands of other dd-wrt routers (e.g. http://192.168.1.1/etcetc ), won't work on your router. So there has to be an attack specifically targeting you[1]. Which rarely happens unless you're famous or have made yourself infamous (or well-hated amongst hacker circles).
So you have more time to update your router or even have time to wait to see if the updates don't break other stuff first.
You're not as vulnerable to zero-day attacks as other people.
Same goes for putting running sshd servers on a different port. I could use port knocking or other other stuff, but so far running it on a different port works well enough for me.
I actually have my sshd server bound on an IP and port that's unreachable from outside, and my firewall has a rule to forward outside connections to it. This way if a mistake happens and my firewall rules get disabled/cleared, ssh and other crap from outside won't work.
[1] If a top hacker was targeting you specifically, they'd probably be able to pwn you.
For example:
1) I'm sure there are many zero-day browser/plugin exploits left (just look at how fast the pwn2own winners pwn stuff - they just sacrifice one of the zero-day exploits they have).
2) I doubt most ISPs have locked their BGP stuff down, so the attackers could use "BGP eavesdropping/prefix attacks" to hijack your connections.
With 1) and 2) you'd be merrily browsing your usual sites and pwned without noticing a thing- the hacker would just pass most of the traffic on, and just alter one or two connections to exploit the relevant browser bug.
Note: there are very few tigers in Africa. The native african tigers died out or left a very long time ago.
That's no longer downloading though.
That's distribution.
Does that question interest you ?
The Kenyans are also testing out bee hives or fakes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8081000/8081521.stm
Elephants are smart though, so they might figure out the fakes eventually.
The transplant thing has been observed, but so far I think it's only anecdotal evidence (maybe a bunch of people made stuff up, but so far I'll accept the reports on face value). Not aware of big research going on about it.
But I won't be surprised if scientists finally find out that your organs (or transplanted organs) can influence what sort of foods/drinks you'd want to consume[1], or even who you want to mate with. It does make some sense from an evolutionary advantage point of view.
[1] Like fried chicken and beer: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1096219000000135
And if your entire immune system can change after a liver transplant, it means you're not just getting a liver - it's not quite so "neat and clean" as that.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/teen-changes-immune-system/story-e6frf00r-1111115390103
So if the donor's stem cells manage to leak out and help form neurons in the recipient's brain or "stomach brain"[2], why shouldn't there be changes?
[2] The Enteric Nervous System:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199905/our-second-brain-the-stomach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system
Who is the boss? From the point of view of the ENS, the "central nervous system" (aka brain/CNS) might just be a means to keeping the ENS satisfied.
ENS to CNS: "Hey CNS go eat a double cheese burger!".
CNS: "Hmm, I feel like eating a double cheese burger, lets do a lot of complicated stuff like driving, walking etc so that I can eat that".
Of course the CNS could say, "Must resist, have to stick to diet".
While an electric vehicle doesn't have to idle, in many places you want to keep air-conditioning or heating on.
:).
I believe the early electric/hybrid vehicles had crappy air-conditioning or they ran out of juice really quickly when you had it on
The MIT team said range of 320km. Is that with airconditioning on or off?
Apparently the Prius needs 2-5 kilowatts to power its airconditioning. 3 hours of air conditioning at full blast (hot day) = 15kWh ( 3 hours at 100kph = 300km),
The MIT team's proposed car battery stores about 60kWh. So that 15kWh is going to affect their range a lot more, compared to a vehicle with a 400-600kWh tank.
They do the battery swap without robots in Nepal.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/nepal-literally-cleans-the-air-with-green-vehicles/66036-2-6.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/66036/nepal-literally-cleans-the-air-with-green-vehicles.html
But their electric vehicles look rather different too ;).
Coal powered power stations are about 45% efficient.
So for a fair comparison we need to factor the above, but we'll also need the "transfer losses" for getting gasoline into fueling stations for cars.
Luck. Sheer dumb luck.
Maybe it's just an AI. Perhaps some people are testing their AI systems on Slashdot.
That could explain a lot of posts I see.
Those look really expensive. How much do they cost?
If they cost more than they'll save you over their lifetime, they're not more efficient.
> So an EV that gets 100 miles on 33.6kWh of electricity has exactly the same efficiency as a gas powered car that gets 100mpg.
It's a bit messier than that. It could actually be somewhere in between 33.6kWh of electricity and 33.6kWh of coal/solar/nuclear since there are losses in conversion and transmission.
But if one does that then we'll have to take into account getting gasoline to the gas powered car etc...
Some people would also be more interested in "miles per dollar" and "miles per dollar excluding subsidies and other stuff".
Well maybe the researchers have a way around that... Does the near infra-red light go through soot?
Personally this looks more promising:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiesOtto
If I'm wishing for pie-in-the-sky tech, I'd want hydrocarbon fuel-cells, and an efficient enough way for nuclear power plants to make hydrocarbons. Or even better battery/capacitor tech.
I'm for better tests. If better makes it harder, then so be it. But better does not necessarily mean harder, or too hard.
For example, one test could involve the driver being required to answer simple questions while driving (what is your name, date of birth, where were you born) and at the "right" moment they still have to stop in time - this could be done in a simulator for safety reasons. Another test could involve the examiner producing a sudden distraction - the driver must still maintain concentration.
Not staying in their lane without good reason = fail.
There should be a test involving merging safely and without too much inconvenience to other drivers (and the converse - allowing other drivers to merge).
Yet another test could involve the examiner giving directions to a destination. The driver must follow safe directions but handle unsafe directions properly - no last second swerves. There is a time limit to get to the place - so you can't ignore all directions.
To me most drivers have to deal with such cases, but many can't seem to handle them properly. So drivers should be trained to handle them safely, and be tested accordingly.
You should have read the last two paragraphs of my post too. But anyway I'll re-explain my point:
;).
If you really want higher safety you either ban any cellphone use, or you require drivers to be better trained.
Drivers don't have to be able to make conversation when the driving gets difficult.
They just need to be able to be aware when "driving is getting difficult", and quickly focus 100% on driving when that happens.
Drivers should be trained to switch to concentrate 100% on driving when necessary.
Lastly, this applies even when the distractions aren't cellphone conversations. There are so many distractions that too many drivers prioritize over driving - their baby crying, a passenger dropping stuff on floor or a passenger saying "hey cool!". Drivers should be trained to ignore such stuff when concentration is needed, and leave them for later.
A passenger yelling "WATCH OUT!" could be critically important though
Heh, when you're under GA you normally have no idea what the surgeons talk about.
:).
... I tried moving my arms and legs -- I couldn't do anything. I thought I was dying."
And often you don't want to
quote: "Kathy LaBrie of Nashua, N.H., also suffered awareness during surgery for a deviated septum. She said she heard "the sound of pushing and grinding and the surgeon talking to the nurses about the kind of car he had.
Also, please read the rest of the post you replied to, especially the last two paragraphs.
No. Not at all. As I said in my post:
"I on the other hand claim the real problem is poor training and skills. If you really want higher safety either you ban any cellphone use, or you require drivers to be better trained."
I apologize for writing a post too long and too unclear for you to read.
Is that 5000x figure really accurate?
:) ).
Because 5000x might not be much when you consider:
1) More people might want to do fancier stuff that require more power e.g. if everyone wanted cars (or their own mecha
Energy consumption per capita in GJ/year:
Canada = 348.63
USA = 327.38
France= 189.77
Japan = 169.70
UK = 164.56
China = 47.81
India = 21.52
Indonesia = 31.81
Brazil = 44.84
So if the poorer but more populous countries tripled their energy consumption (add night lighting, airconditioning/heating, fridges, cars, skyscrapers, factories to supply all those goodies and it starts adding up really quickly), that "5000x the power we need" could become something like "1300x the power we need".
And if the population doubles, that drops to "700x the power we need".
2) There will be conversion losses. 50% efficiency = 350x the power we need. 10% efficiency = 70x the power we need.
3) We're not the only species on the planet that needs a share of that solar energy. There are way more than 5000 species on this planet.
So, forgive me if I'm not comforted by "5000x".
One or both of you work for the UK government?
What do you mean?
:)
Is that like some cops classifying "white guy walking into a black gangsta neighborhood while wearing a t-shirt with racially inflammatory words printed on it" as suicide, and some not?
Nah, men are just better at killing people, even themselves.
> you don't need to think about being restricted to a schema, columns, types, to define identifiers for everything, to do explicit joins, etc. Just store your objects as they are in memory.
;).
That's not a disadvantage in many cases, especially for the long term. There's a benefit of forcing people to use SQL to talk to the DB. It becomes a layer of abstraction, somewhat like a standard protocol or interface.
When you use SQL, your database can be used by 100 different people and programs, and when you add columns/fields, if the coders have been doing things properly (not assuming column order and number of columns), everything still works. When lots of things can use the same DB, that database often becomes more valuable and useful.
In contrast what does "Just store your objects as they are in memory" mean, when you have 100 different programs? What happens if a program needs a new data field attached to the returned object? Can the other 99 programs still work without changes? Or will some require a recompile since the DB is now returning a bigger/different object?
If you need recompile or modifications for stuff like that, that means only a few programs can share the same database (otherwise it becomes a maintenance nightmare), and that could limit the extent of how useful that database could be. You might then have to add layers of abstraction so that it becomes more accessible (and stays accessible) to many other programs. And one day one of those layers might end up looking like SQL
To quote myself: One man's impedance mismatch is another man's layer of abstraction.
1) You're still going to need something solid to keep the hot gases and gunk from escaping.
;).
2) Even if you cover the whole top of the cylinder with the laser stuff, if some gunk ends up on the laser things are going to get nasty.
The other problem (not just free air).
When soot/gunk ends up on a spark plug the spark plug doesn't fail dramatically.
When soot/gunk ends up on the exit point of the optical fibre, or some "window pane", or the laser itself, your "laser ignition" engine will lose more than just a few HP
So you'd probably have to diverge the beam a lot, have a huge window (or multiple windows) and focus it some point in the cylinder, so that random junk stuck on the window won't heat up and blow up.
Of course you could make the window very strong so that soot blowing up next to it won't break or wear it out. But if stuff is just igniting right at the window and not inside, I doubt the ignition will be much better than a spark plug.
For more perspective, PC keyboard controllers are similar in processing power to something like this: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/8048/Intel-P8048.html