Something to drown out the iPad hype. This is something that really tickles my neophillia and I'm suprised the reaction in the press is so underwhelming. Lately we've been seeing the same things we've been buying for a while, repackaged, enveloped in a reality distortion field and re-sold as something revolutionary which seems to be what Apple thinks is innovation.
But this is Microsoft actually doing something we haven't seen before in a consumer product. Just when I was going to post a blog about how there is nothing new under the sun in IT, I'm foiled.
Why not run native? It would be ok for at least basic apps depending on hardware power. My understanding is Chrome has debian underpinnings at this point. To the point that getting WINE to run on it would not be considered pass marks for a geek card.
If you want to run Windows apps natively on chrome it's going to certainly be possible and will be solved within hours of the OS hitting production.
What banner is flying over this huge censorship push? What is the general public's thoughts on all this? Usually with this sort of absolute censorship you have a particularly powerful head of state like in Russia, Iran or North Korea. Australia still has free elections (to my knowlege). Here in the USA we had a bit of tightening here and there security-wise with 9/11, but Australia doesn't seem to have any sort of dictator-to-be, nor do they have any significant terrorist threats or major overarching foreign policy that would require them to keep an eye on dissidents. Usually someone can point to some major speech by a prime minister or president outlining an "improved security policy" for the welfare of the country against some outside boogeyman, but from what I can tell, Australia is tightening it's grip on everything for censorship's sake.
I'm confused too. I live in New Zealand and to be fair, neither side of the Tasman Sea really understands the thinking of the other country.
Trivially easy to circumvent once again. Google already offers SSL encryption for web searches and for Gmail and I don't even need to mention all the privacy tools available. I think the bulk of people have moved away from their ISP based email due to the impoverished email service ISPs offer. I myself have already moved all my email to cloud based email a long time ago - what is the point in sticking with ISP based email? Native email clients don't really offer much compelling functionality over cloud services other than a way to loose all your emails when your hard drive dies.
I already use SSL for Google and Gmail. Of course the ISP can still track and log your cleartext http and dns lookups etc, but it at least offers some privacy.
Everybody who has something to hide on the internet is already using these trivial methods and others. This is about spying on the average citizen. Poor privacy on the internet in particular social media is already hurting countless millions of people identity theft and scams, we really do NOT need the government spying too.
I am really sick of people making the internet out to be something it is not. The Internet is a bunch of protocols that facilitates end to end communication to the boundaries of it's network. It's as transparent as indoor plumbing. All it does is connect a user to services, it is not a information super-highway (urgh), an oracle of all human knowledge or a portent of the kurzweilian singularity.
If one want to talk about those things you can talk about the services and their patrons that operate over the internet.
This definition problem is even more pertinent now social media services have become networks unto themselves.
This is where a turbine comes in. A turbine can still extract energy from the wind if the airflow is reversed a long it's axis. Faster than the wind, the air has reversed in direction. There is still a net airflow across the blades. The mommentum of the rotating mechanicals causes the vehicle to be propelled past equilibrium, then it runs away as it begins to extract work on the the APPARENT WIND blowing across the vehicle.
Because the comparing the velocity of the wind and the velocity of the car is a bogus comparison. In order to not be a perpetual motion machine, it is only necessary for the energy of the wind (available to the car) to be more than the energy required for the car to accelerate to and maintain a particular velocity. The tricky part is in extracting the energy from the wind when the velocity of the car exceeds the velocity of the wind. But that is an engineering problem, not a metaphysical problem.
It is remarkable how self-proclaimed experts are skeptical of this yet it is so immediately obvious once you look at the videos.
So if you guys haven't figured out how this really works, here is a much simplified way of looking at it.
The important thing here is that a a turbine is not a sail - to me this radically changes any assertions about DWFTTW I've read. We straight away need to throw away many assumptions and look at some differences between the two.
Directly downwind, a sail can only generate net thrust along a vector with a pressure differential in that same direction.
Lets look at the turbine in isolation. Air blowing along the axis of rotation, causes torque and therefore available power around that axis, that can be used to drive a vehicle forward.
So what happens if you reverse the airflow in the opposite direction? Well, a turbine can still generate rotational torque IF THE AIRFLOW IS REVERSED.
Opps. It seems every armchair skeptic I've read so far has not picked up on this simple point.
When the vehicle is traveling faster than the wind the airflow reverses over the turbine, relative to it. So any skeptic has to explain to me exactly how is it suddenly impossible for a turbine to not be able to generate work with a net airflow along it's axis?
This alone means that a vehicle can generate power from the wind,in any direction, even as it travels faster than the wind, downwind, provided there is some kind of differential in airflow that work can be extracted from.
Relative to the turbine the air has stopped and then begun to flow in the opposite direction. All that is required is a net airflow relative to the turbine itself. The slightly counter-intuitive effect of APPARENT WIND applies and throws off people who perhaps have been too quick to dismiss. Turbines love apparent wind, it's all they need.
A prerequisite is that there is a speed differential between airflow, the ground and the vehicle, therefore useful work can be extracted somehow. This is not energy from nothing, nor perpetual motion, nor some energy storage scheme.
It is remarkably simple. I am not a mechanical engineer nor a aerodynamics and have no other qualification other than I've stared at the videos for a while until the 'Ah Ha!' momment.
Oh but there is more to it than that I know, like how the thing transitions past equilibrium which I don't quite get, but now I see the main rule of thumb that allows this to work. I've moved on with my day.
But the outcome of all this is a quite remarkable discovery, this means that a wind turbine powered car can feasibly travel faster than the wind IN ANY DIRECTION. Cool!
The unit you should be using is one metric asston. Mathematically speaking all non-zero integers of bucketloads, truckloads or shitloads always equal one metric asston and gets the point across.
It's a fallacious argument to assert that just because one has been wrong before one is therefore wrong now, without addressing the actual facts of the argument. It's a common tactic that cranks use themselves.
Another nut job fallacy is.. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.
Well we've all heard that one. In reality absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Is it not that lack of evidence one was at the murder scene is indeed evidence one is not guilty?
Oh and I do love the saying "correlation is not causation" often said here, which is where crackpot anti-logic spills over into the/. group think. Correlation is in fact a prerequisite of causation, certainly a lack of correlation is evidence against causation? Once possible correlations are eliminated this way, whatever remains is the best hypothesis.
I love the argument skills of crackpot conspiracy theorists almost as much as the wild stories themselves. Logical fallacies are underrated.
That this isn't done everywhere. With all the red light cameras everywhere (for revenue), you'd think they could put a few out there that would make it so I don't spend 3 minutes every morning staring at an empty intersection.
There, fixed that for you. Now the rest of your question is self answering.
Security is not a one time design effort. It's a ongoing process. The layout of interface is a one time design effort, because if you get that wrong it is a problem every single time your interface is used a flaw wastes a little of someones time, and it's hard to make changes without pissing off your user base.
Security is the opposite. Great design should not be your focus. It helps, but you cannot forsee everything.
Microsoft not only never planned for the internet but they failed to be a moving target also.
The very telling part of this is mention of the human effort involved:
the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers
To me this undermines the headline a bit. We're talking about a fancy database system rather than significant advancement in a real learning algorithim. I guess great feats of AI still have great feats of human labour behind them.
The luddites were concerned machines would take away their jobs. Skip a century and a bit, the reality is today almost everything is still made by people, but in developing nations, and they are just paid like they are machines.
Android phones now outsell iPhone OS phones, the OS has been excellent since 1.6, the market is really taking off. Last I checked there was everything you might need in the Android Market, inlcuding many things you can't get on iPhone. Then there's home screen widgets.
Mod me down but Android an immature wild west platform? My ass.
There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it's immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple's way or the highway..."
Somehow freedom != wild west? I'll take the highway thanks.
Security ratings for Windows and Mac OSX seem to be similar, at least from what I've seen in independant listings. I was not suprised to see Vista very low, Windows XP mediocre, and hardend linux right off the charts. The suprises for me were OSX being rather insecure, comparable to XP. Then again OSX falls fast, if not consistently first at PWN2OWN style competitions.
I guess security ratings are not measured on the malware ecosystem, but actual security design.
Compile it yourself. Your favourite OSS IDE is a few commands away from running on Chrome. The ChromeOS I played with would install.deb packages even...
One thing that stands out to me is that the rear spoiler and front splitter would make for a lot of aero drag, especially where the rest of the car is rather likely to be quite aerodynamically slippery looking at it's shape. They've also tackled rolling resistance and drive-train efficiency so any gains in aerodynamics would greatly extend range. At 60mph it's the greatest force acting on this car, and with their steps towards efficiency it is even greater. If they would just ditch the big spoiler and the front splitter, they'll watch their range shoot up. 0.50 to 0.30 cd might account for 40% improvement in a vehicle where rolling resistance has been already addresed.
Don't get me wrong what these guys are doing is great, but ~270 miles range is not terribly impressive considering that's what a stock Tesla has achieved.
Ditching the wing and splitter could have yielded them 20-40% improved range at open road speed, at the small expense of the race car look. It would take a few minutes with a spanner to remove, and to put back on for parking up for a photo shoot with the local press. I hope this is what they do. Some further work with some duct tape or some more ambitious aero mods with some coroplast http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aerocivic-how-drop-your-cd-0-31-0-a-290.html ecomodder* style and they could have squeezed out more efficiency. The very best road vehicles approach 0.15 Cd, this would have given them a shot at 500 miles range. Lower the speed a little and they may have gone 600mi / 1000km.
I can't find Radcial SR8's aero stats anywhere but I know such track day specials have a fair bit of down force by design, so a drag coefficient above 0.50 is not uncommon. This is largely the result of the wings, air damn, and underbody design. High down force set up might be over 0.70 or more. To compare, a SUV is about 0.40, a good sedan 0.32, and a Toyota Prius 0.27, Aptera is about 0.17 these vehicles are not even designed not to generate lift let alone downforce.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the project will fork.
I'd mod you up if I could.
Something to drown out the iPad hype. This is something that really tickles my neophillia and I'm suprised the reaction in the press is so underwhelming. Lately we've been seeing the same things we've been buying for a while, repackaged, enveloped in a reality distortion field and re-sold as something revolutionary which seems to be what Apple thinks is innovation.
But this is Microsoft actually doing something we haven't seen before in a consumer product. Just when I was going to post a blog about how there is nothing new under the sun in IT, I'm foiled.
... and what kind of clothing/protective gear will NOT set on fire if accidental exposure should occur?
Why, tinfoil of course! Make yourself a hat.
Why not run native? It would be ok for at least basic apps depending on hardware power. My understanding is Chrome has debian underpinnings at this point. To the point that getting WINE to run on it would not be considered pass marks for a geek card.
If you want to run Windows apps natively on chrome it's going to certainly be possible and will be solved within hours of the OS hitting production.
What banner is flying over this huge censorship push? What is the general public's thoughts on all this? Usually with this sort of absolute censorship you have a particularly powerful head of state like in Russia, Iran or North Korea. Australia still has free elections (to my knowlege). Here in the USA we had a bit of tightening here and there security-wise with 9/11, but Australia doesn't seem to have any sort of dictator-to-be, nor do they have any significant terrorist threats or major overarching foreign policy that would require them to keep an eye on dissidents. Usually someone can point to some major speech by a prime minister or president outlining an "improved security policy" for the welfare of the country against some outside boogeyman, but from what I can tell, Australia is tightening it's grip on everything for censorship's sake.
I'm confused too. I live in New Zealand and to be fair, neither side of the Tasman Sea really understands the thinking of the other country.
Trivially easy to circumvent once again. Google already offers SSL encryption for web searches and for Gmail and I don't even need to mention all the privacy tools available. I think the bulk of people have moved away from their ISP based email due to the impoverished email service ISPs offer. I myself have already moved all my email to cloud based email a long time ago - what is the point in sticking with ISP based email? Native email clients don't really offer much compelling functionality over cloud services other than a way to loose all your emails when your hard drive dies.
I already use SSL for Google and Gmail. Of course the ISP can still track and log your cleartext http and dns lookups etc, but it at least offers some privacy.
Everybody who has something to hide on the internet is already using these trivial methods and others. This is about spying on the average citizen. Poor privacy on the internet in particular social media is already hurting countless millions of people identity theft and scams, we really do NOT need the government spying too.
I am really sick of people making the internet out to be something it is not. The Internet is a bunch of protocols that facilitates end to end communication to the boundaries of it's network. It's as transparent as indoor plumbing. All it does is connect a user to services, it is not a information super-highway (urgh), an oracle of all human knowledge or a portent of the kurzweilian singularity.
If one want to talk about those things you can talk about the services and their patrons that operate over the internet.
This definition problem is even more pertinent now social media services have become networks unto themselves.
I'm starting to think this 'Intuition' thing has a higher reputation than it deserves.
Or is it that women just do it better?
Because the comparing the velocity of the wind and the velocity of the car is a bogus comparison. In order to not be a perpetual motion machine, it is only necessary for the energy of the wind (available to the car) to be more than the energy required for the car to accelerate to and maintain a particular velocity. The tricky part is in extracting the energy from the wind when the velocity of the car exceeds the velocity of the wind. But that is an engineering problem, not a metaphysical problem.
It is remarkable how self-proclaimed experts are skeptical of this yet it is so immediately obvious once you look at the videos.
So if you guys haven't figured out how this really works, here is a much simplified way of looking at it.
The important thing here is that a a turbine is not a sail - to me this radically changes any assertions about DWFTTW I've read. We straight away need to throw away many assumptions and look at some differences between the two.
Directly downwind, a sail can only generate net thrust along a vector with a pressure differential in that same direction.
Lets look at the turbine in isolation. Air blowing along the axis of rotation, causes torque and therefore available power around that axis, that can be used to drive a vehicle forward.
So what happens if you reverse the airflow in the opposite direction? Well, a turbine can still generate rotational torque IF THE AIRFLOW IS REVERSED.
Opps. It seems every armchair skeptic I've read so far has not picked up on this simple point.
When the vehicle is traveling faster than the wind the airflow reverses over the turbine, relative to it. So any skeptic has to explain to me exactly how is it suddenly impossible for a turbine to not be able to generate work with a net airflow along it's axis?
This alone means that a vehicle can generate power from the wind,in any direction, even as it travels faster than the wind, downwind, provided there is some kind of differential in airflow that work can be extracted from.
Relative to the turbine the air has stopped and then begun to flow in the opposite direction. All that is required is a net airflow relative to the turbine itself. The slightly counter-intuitive effect of APPARENT WIND applies and throws off people who perhaps have been too quick to dismiss. Turbines love apparent wind, it's all they need.
A prerequisite is that there is a speed differential between airflow, the ground and the vehicle, therefore useful work can be extracted somehow. This is not energy from nothing, nor perpetual motion, nor some energy storage scheme.
It is remarkably simple. I am not a mechanical engineer nor a aerodynamics and have no other qualification other than I've stared at the videos for a while until the 'Ah Ha!' momment.
Oh but there is more to it than that I know, like how the thing transitions past equilibrium which I don't quite get, but now I see the main rule of thumb that allows this to work. I've moved on with my day.
But the outcome of all this is a quite remarkable discovery, this means that a wind turbine powered car can feasibly travel faster than the wind IN ANY DIRECTION. Cool!
The unit you should be using is one metric asston. Mathematically speaking all non-zero integers of bucketloads, truckloads or shitloads always equal one metric asston and gets the point across.
I feel sorry for the spies embedded somewhere in toofaristan using this antiquated system. Someone send them a linux laptop with Tor installed.
It's a fallacious argument to assert that just because one has been wrong before one is therefore wrong now, without addressing the actual facts of the argument. It's a common tactic that cranks use themselves.
/. group think. Correlation is in fact a prerequisite of causation, certainly a lack of correlation is evidence against causation? Once possible correlations are eliminated this way, whatever remains is the best hypothesis.
Another nut job fallacy is.. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Well we've all heard that one. In reality absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Is it not that lack of evidence one was at the murder scene is indeed evidence one is not guilty?
Oh and I do love the saying "correlation is not causation" often said here, which is where crackpot anti-logic spills over into the
I love the argument skills of crackpot conspiracy theorists almost as much as the wild stories themselves. Logical fallacies are underrated.
I could haarp on about this all day.
That this isn't done everywhere. With all the red light cameras everywhere (for revenue), you'd think they could put a few out there that would make it so I don't spend 3 minutes every morning staring at an empty intersection.
There, fixed that for you. Now the rest of your question is self answering.
Security is not a one time design effort. It's a ongoing process. The layout of interface is a one time design effort, because if you get that wrong it is a problem every single time your interface is used a flaw wastes a little of someones time, and it's hard to make changes without pissing off your user base.
Security is the opposite. Great design should not be your focus. It helps, but you cannot forsee everything.
Microsoft not only never planned for the internet but they failed to be a moving target also.
is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory. - Ronald Reagean
the system was built thanks to a database of millions of human-labeled images put together by Chinese workers
To me this undermines the headline a bit. We're talking about a fancy database system rather than significant advancement in a real learning algorithim. I guess great feats of AI still have great feats of human labour behind them.
The luddites were concerned machines would take away their jobs. Skip a century and a bit, the reality is today almost everything is still made by people, but in developing nations, and they are just paid like they are machines.
Mod me down but Android an immature wild west platform? My ass.
There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it's immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple's way or the highway..."
Somehow freedom != wild west? I'll take the highway thanks.
All security is through obscurity to some extent. Encryption, passwords etc.
Asus developed the solution to this, a monitor that was impervious to crossbow bolts thanks to a layer of crystal sapphire: http://hothardware.com/Articles/ASUS-LS201-20-LCD-Monitor/
Security ratings for Windows and Mac OSX seem to be similar, at least from what I've seen in independant listings. I was not suprised to see Vista very low, Windows XP mediocre, and hardend linux right off the charts. The suprises for me were OSX being rather insecure, comparable to XP. Then again OSX falls fast, if not consistently first at PWN2OWN style competitions.
I guess security ratings are not measured on the malware ecosystem, but actual security design.
Compile it yourself. Your favourite OSS IDE is a few commands away from running on Chrome. The ChromeOS I played with would install .deb packages even ...
One thing that stands out to me is that the rear spoiler and front splitter would make for a lot of aero drag, especially where the rest of the car is rather likely to be quite aerodynamically slippery looking at it's shape. They've also tackled rolling resistance and drive-train efficiency so any gains in aerodynamics would greatly extend range. At 60mph it's the greatest force acting on this car, and with their steps towards efficiency it is even greater. If they would just ditch the big spoiler and the front splitter, they'll watch their range shoot up. 0.50 to 0.30 cd might account for 40% improvement in a vehicle where rolling resistance has been already addresed.
Don't get me wrong what these guys are doing is great, but ~270 miles range is not terribly impressive considering that's what a stock Tesla has achieved.
Ditching the wing and splitter could have yielded them 20-40% improved range at open road speed, at the small expense of the race car look. It would take a few minutes with a spanner to remove, and to put back on for parking up for a photo shoot with the local press. I hope this is what they do. Some further work with some duct tape or some more ambitious aero mods with some coroplast http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aerocivic-how-drop-your-cd-0-31-0-a-290.html ecomodder* style and they could have squeezed out more efficiency. The very best road vehicles approach 0.15 Cd, this would have given them a shot at 500 miles range. Lower the speed a little and they may have gone 600mi / 1000km.
I can't find Radcial SR8's aero stats anywhere but I know such track day specials have a fair bit of down force by design, so a drag coefficient above 0.50 is not uncommon. This is largely the result of the wings, air damn, and underbody design. High down force set up might be over 0.70 or more. To compare, a SUV is about 0.40, a good sedan 0.32, and a Toyota Prius 0.27, Aptera is about 0.17 these vehicles are not even designed not to generate lift let alone downforce.
* Yes I do lurk there.
Thats a shocking pun.