Yes. For pages of pure bitonal content, the JBIG2 image compression scheme can produce files approximately 30-40x smaller than the equivalent using CCITT G4. This is such a massive improvement that it makes it tempting to simply represent all documents in raster form with ancillary text information -- in other words, it competes with vector graphics as far as side. No other widely supported potential archival format provides JBIG2. This in itself is an enormous benefit, but not quite a deal-maker for PDF.
PDF really shines in that it is easy to parse and has a limited, well-defined graphics language. The PDF/A standard even further restricts the classes of operations a conformant file can perform. On top of other things, it spells out the requirements for fonts, to ensure that documents rendered in the future will appear as intended. It also dictates that details of the document's semantic structure be embedded to assist analysis of the archived data in the future.
I probably sound like a shill for PDF, but that isn't the case. I simply write commercial code which deals with PDF. It is a terrible shame that Adobe's viewer products have made such a bad impression on everyone. I believe PDF is a well-designed, simple, extensible format with a hell of a lot going for it, if you simply discount everything with the word "Adobe" in it.
Dude, the article indicates that the everybody who interviewed him was impressed. If that's true, and he really is a moron, that means that everybody ELSE at RedHat is also a moron. And if THAT'S the case, then it was fucked anyway. One man can't sink a ship. Okay, if he has several pounds of explosive he can sink a ship. Let's check his pockets.
So it can't hover? That makes it even less likely that inductive charging is possible. No, I didn't read the article. Get over it. And blaming people for the moderation their comments receive is dumb.
It not like the employees installed a keylogger or monitoring software and discovered it, it was on his machine when they were asked to do work on it.
Bullshit. I drop my car off at a mechanic. In the back seat is sitting an unlocked briefcase. Just because it's unlocked, does that mean the mechanics, whose job it is to fix my car, should consider it within their rights to go through my briefcase?
"We needed some files to test the burner." What a load of shit. They were snooping, like they probably do on every damn machine that goes through there.
To do that the UAV would have to hover sufficiently close to the power line. I bet the power used to hover is more than the power you could possibly extract by induction.
Whatever voltage the batteries naturally operate at is going to be close to the charging voltage. Besides, you can always do a worst case estimation. Suppose they charge at 20 volts, which would be insanely high. 50 amps * 20 volts = 1000 watts. Beefy for sure, but that's an overestimate. A residential circuit can handle 1000 watts no problem. The actual value will be less than that.
What about storage density?? That's the big question.
Storage density is not as relevant, when you can recharge in 5 minutes.
If you're traveling somewhere you won't be able to recharge, then use an older, higher capacity battery. Otherwise, who cares if you're recharging every 2 hours (or whatever) if it only takes 5 minutes to do so?
I've seen a 2 year old girl navigate through multiple levels of pages on a free game site, download, then run an installer, click through the installation, click "I Agree" on the EULA, and run the game.
Kids are inherently more intelligent than we are. Something happens to them that makes them stupid. I still haven't figured out what it is. It probably has to do with parents and public school.
I'm thinking that folks Out There(tm) are going to start realizing that you simply cannot make a flawed architecture run any better by adding more duct tape to it.
Maybe not duct tape, but I've had a lot of success with JB-Weld.
Just think. Why do replacement carafe for you coffee make costs 12.99 + shipping and handling and three weeks of wait time, while a new coffee maker costs only 14.99? vendor lock.
And who the hell can blame them? If I had exclusive rights to manufacture something, I'd charge whatever I could get away with. The problem is the artificial restriction on competition which creates this situation in the first place.
Anyone who installs "beta", "community technology preview", or "release candidate" software on their systems and then complains about the experience and how it sucks should be branded with a big ol' "D U M B A S S" on their short-bus-riding-tuckus.
What the hell are you talking about? What exactly is the point of a release candidate or beta if not to elicit feedback from users? Do you think they are sending this shit out just to be NICE? They want to know what's broken, and I'm sure as hell gonna tell them what's broken.
I guess according to you we should bend over while thanking Microsoft for their broken shit?
1. Government official gets idea to make a bit of money. 2. Official gives intern important tape, knowing it will be left in the car. 3. Official knows where intern lives, and goes and steals tape from car. 4. Official sells data on the black market for a dollar value far in excess of a week's vacation time. 5. Official gets to keep his job.
There is no "???" step here.
Really, what are the chances that this intern gets his car broken into on the VERY SAME DAY he happens to be carrying this tape? I mean come on. Anybody who thinks this was a coincidence is crazy.
And how the hell is encryption going to help? A corrupt official HAS THE KEYS. If more than one person has keys, there is no way to prove who caused the breach. This is going to happen more and more. Probably the majority of these incidents have been inside jobs.
Cellular life can't reproduce without a very specialized substrate, either. It's called "The Earth." Take earth based life pretty much anywhere in the universe, and it dies. How is that not "specialized?"
ehem, isn't israel "a bunch of religious radicals with nuclear bombs" too? actually... i'd say that a country that even remotely considers discussion of creationist views as part of their science curricula a bunch of religiuos radicals... why is Iran religious radicalness worse than israel's or USA's?
The point is, we do know that Israel has nukes, and they indeed do have a large portion of religious radicals. It is interesting to note that despite this, and despite the considerably hostile atmosphere surrounding Israel's presence in the Middle East, they have not used them.
I don't say this in defense of Israel. I say it because we have a tangible example of a government that many people say is "just as bad" as the Iranian government, and yet it hasn't blown the Middle East into tiny chunks. If Israel can exercise such restraint, why can't Iran?
How can the export of chips to unsavory foreign powers be controlled? Apparently the US government thinks it can do it by simply wishing it were so.
It's a MICROCHIP. How in the hell are you going to prevent such a small item from making its way anywhere in the world? Somebody can just go to a "friendly" nation, buy a shitload of them, throw them in a suitcase and go back to Iran. How are you gonna stop that?
Maybe what we should be investigating are the MOTIVATIONS behind Iran's push for nuclear technology, instead of focusing on the CPUs which happen to crunch the numbers for them?
How do we know the the retrovirus genome didn't originate with the hosts themselves? Did these viruses evolve truly independently, or might they have started out as fragments of genetic code from some larger organism which somehow escaped and became self-sufficient?
In other words, when we look at the human genome and say, "This is riddled with retroviruses!" is it not possible that the retroviruses were actually there all along, and only later became able to leave the parent cell and operate independently?
Are retroviruses actually just chunks of "rebel DNA" from our own genome, or possibly from some other species?
Censorship only serves to INCREASE the amount of "illegal" content by spreading awareness of it. How do you censor something without first telling everybody precisely what they are NOT allowed to say?
How do you prevent the spread of "violent images" when nobody knows what a "violent image" even is? You have to first give an example, which means you are spreading the very images you are trying to restrict. Perhaps in N. Korea there is a law saying, "You may not refer to Kim Jong Il as a Big Fat Poopoo Head." But by the very act of censoring this statement, you broadcast it far and wide.
How can you command someone "Do not say 'X'" without first saying 'X' yourself? The only way to eradicate unpalatable ideas is to ignore them, ignore those who speak of them, and allow them to die out. Banning the idea does nothing except spread it further, to people for whom it may not even have occurred to say 'X', but they're sure as hell thinking about it now that you've told them not to say it.
Who cares if you dissipate the energy. Tell me how you're going to dissipate the momentum. It simply can't be done. Advanced materials can spread momentum out, reducing the pressure of an impact but they CAN NOT reduce the total FORCE of an impact. Unless parts of the armor physical blow away, separate, and fly off carrying bits of momentum with them, you are still going to feel the entire force of impact. I'm not saying these materials are pointless by any means, but it is a basic fact that momentum CAN NOT be "blocked" and you still have do deal with it. No magic armor will protect you against being hit by a locomotive.
Force times distance is WORK, not energy. Can you explain the energy of a photon in terms of "force times distance?" Nope.
What matters in this application isn't energy, but momentum. If the fabric could dissipate ALL the kinetic energy of an explosion/bullet as heat, that would be remarkable but not enough. You can't "dissipate" momentum, regardless of what crazy cool materials you come up with.
In the case of a blast shield covering a window, the strength of the fabric against tearing will allow it to transfer the momentum of the explosive blast to the structure of the building instead of allowing it to blow in through the window. But that only works because the fabric is anchored to the building. Wearing such a fabric will prevent debris from penetrating your body but it will not protect you from the concussive force of an explosion or the raw momentum of a bullet.
People have died from internal injuries after being shot while wearing a bullet proof vest. The bullet was "stopped" in a sense, in that it didn't actually ENTER the victim's body but the momentum still kills.
Why are people on the internet always so eager to think that highly qualified economists at world class Universities will have failed to consider the one blindingly obvious thing to consider about a situation, simply based on reading a one line summary of the relevant paper, in order to prove some clearly stupid point?
I call it the "101 phenomenon." It goes something like: "Any moron learned in physics 101 that that's not possible..." Or "This is statistics 101 stuff, what a bunch of idiots..."
People take course XXX 101 and think they are now experts. When in fact, the true experts took not only 101, but 201, 301, 401, and probably all the way to "40001." And then they TAUGHT each of those classes. And then they wrote a book on it. They know all the little places where XXX 101 actually made simplifications or glossed over complex topics, or made statements that were NOT strictly true but did so for the sake of teachability. In other words, they know so much more than you do that they already thought of your petty objection within the first microsecond and addressed it not much more than a millisecond later. They counter your objections in their sleep, with no conscious effort -- literally.
Usually the hard science is left out of the reporting. That doesn't mean it isn't there. But everybody loves to be an expert just because some journalist worded something badly or took it out of context. If your exposure to a topic is only "101 level," you really have no clue at all and certainly no basis to make a meaningful criticism.
Not at all. A leap in security will take a requisite change in our development tools
The problem is bootstrapping. Sure, this POLA stuff is great. But how do we know that the tools we believe give us these things, are actually working correctly?
If you run "ps" on a computer system and see nothing suspicious, does that mean that nothing is wrong? Ever heard of a root kit? If you can't trust (or you are not SURE that you can trust) the tools you can't trust what the tools produce. See Ken Thompson.
Concepts of secure computing are valuable, but they are just concepts, not implementations.
Defiance? How about trespassing and/or illegal access? I'm usually a stickler for the clean differentiation between copyright infringement and theft, but this is clear-cut. The cable company has invested serious PHYSICAL RESOURCES into their distribution network. It's not just content -- there are wires in the dirt. Do you think that costs nothing?
I think if we ever come up with Star Trek matter replicators, the "IP" crowd wil somehow make them illegal.
Which would prove how completely fucking insane those people are. With the ability to infinitely replicate matter, we are ALL infinitely rich. They seem to think that without restriction on supply, there is no way to profit by selling a scarce resource. They don't grasp the obvious fact that if all resources are unlimited in supply, then we are living in PARADISE.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it compress better or something?
Yes. For pages of pure bitonal content, the JBIG2 image compression scheme can produce files approximately 30-40x smaller than the equivalent using CCITT G4. This is such a massive improvement that it makes it tempting to simply represent all documents in raster form with ancillary text information -- in other words, it competes with vector graphics as far as side. No other widely supported potential archival format provides JBIG2. This in itself is an enormous benefit, but not quite a deal-maker for PDF.
PDF really shines in that it is easy to parse and has a limited, well-defined graphics language. The PDF/A standard even further restricts the classes of operations a conformant file can perform. On top of other things, it spells out the requirements for fonts, to ensure that documents rendered in the future will appear as intended. It also dictates that details of the document's semantic structure be embedded to assist analysis of the archived data in the future.
I probably sound like a shill for PDF, but that isn't the case. I simply write commercial code which deals with PDF. It is a terrible shame that Adobe's viewer products have made such a bad impression on everyone. I believe PDF is a well-designed, simple, extensible format with a hell of a lot going for it, if you simply discount everything with the word "Adobe" in it.
Dude, the article indicates that the everybody who interviewed him was impressed. If that's true, and he really is a moron, that means that everybody ELSE at RedHat is also a moron. And if THAT'S the case, then it was fucked anyway. One man can't sink a ship. Okay, if he has several pounds of explosive he can sink a ship. Let's check his pockets.
So it can't hover? That makes it even less likely that inductive charging is possible. No, I didn't read the article. Get over it. And blaming people for the moderation their comments receive is dumb.
It not like the employees installed a keylogger or monitoring software and discovered it, it was on his machine when they were asked to do work on it.
Bullshit. I drop my car off at a mechanic. In the back seat is sitting an unlocked briefcase. Just because it's unlocked, does that mean the mechanics, whose job it is to fix my car, should consider it within their rights to go through my briefcase?
"We needed some files to test the burner." What a load of shit. They were snooping, like they probably do on every damn machine that goes through there.
To do that the UAV would have to hover sufficiently close to the power line. I bet the power used to hover is more than the power you could possibly extract by induction.
Whatever voltage the batteries naturally operate at is going to be close to the charging voltage. Besides, you can always do a worst case estimation. Suppose they charge at 20 volts, which would be insanely high. 50 amps * 20 volts = 1000 watts. Beefy for sure, but that's an overestimate. A residential circuit can handle 1000 watts no problem. The actual value will be less than that.
Did you READ what I wrote? If you're doing something where you can't get to a recharging station/electrical outlet, use a REGULAR BATTERY.
What about storage density?? That's the big question.
Storage density is not as relevant, when you can recharge in 5 minutes.
If you're traveling somewhere you won't be able to recharge, then use an older, higher capacity battery. Otherwise, who cares if you're recharging every 2 hours (or whatever) if it only takes 5 minutes to do so?
I've seen a 2 year old girl navigate through multiple levels of pages on a free game site, download, then run an installer, click through the installation, click "I Agree" on the EULA, and run the game.
Kids are inherently more intelligent than we are. Something happens to them that makes them stupid. I still haven't figured out what it is. It probably has to do with parents and public school.
I'm thinking that folks Out There(tm) are going to start realizing that you simply cannot make a flawed architecture run any better by adding more duct tape to it.
Maybe not duct tape, but I've had a lot of success with JB-Weld.
Just think. Why do replacement carafe for you coffee make costs 12.99 + shipping and handling and three weeks of wait time, while a new coffee maker costs only 14.99? vendor lock.
And who the hell can blame them? If I had exclusive rights to manufacture something, I'd charge whatever I could get away with. The problem is the artificial restriction on competition which creates this situation in the first place.
Anyone who installs "beta", "community technology preview", or "release candidate" software on their systems and then complains about the experience and how it sucks should be branded with a big ol' "D U M B A S S" on their short-bus-riding-tuckus.
What the hell are you talking about? What exactly is the point of a release candidate or beta if not to elicit feedback from users? Do you think they are sending this shit out just to be NICE? They want to know what's broken, and I'm sure as hell gonna tell them what's broken.
I guess according to you we should bend over while thanking Microsoft for their broken shit?
Here's what I think really happened, folks:
1. Government official gets idea to make a bit of money.
2. Official gives intern important tape, knowing it will be left in the car.
3. Official knows where intern lives, and goes and steals tape from car.
4. Official sells data on the black market for a dollar value far in excess of a week's vacation time.
5. Official gets to keep his job.
There is no "???" step here.
Really, what are the chances that this intern gets his car broken into on the VERY SAME DAY he happens to be carrying this tape? I mean come on. Anybody who thinks this was a coincidence is crazy.
And how the hell is encryption going to help? A corrupt official HAS THE KEYS. If more than one person has keys, there is no way to prove who caused the breach. This is going to happen more and more. Probably the majority of these incidents have been inside jobs.
Cellular life can't reproduce without a very specialized substrate, either. It's called "The Earth." Take earth based life pretty much anywhere in the universe, and it dies. How is that not "specialized?"
ehem, isn't israel "a bunch of religious radicals with nuclear bombs" too? actually... i'd say that a country that even remotely considers discussion of creationist views as part of their science curricula a bunch of religiuos radicals... why is Iran religious radicalness worse than israel's or USA's?
The point is, we do know that Israel has nukes, and they indeed do have a large portion of religious radicals. It is interesting to note that despite this, and despite the considerably hostile atmosphere surrounding Israel's presence in the Middle East, they have not used them.
I don't say this in defense of Israel. I say it because we have a tangible example of a government that many people say is "just as bad" as the Iranian government, and yet it hasn't blown the Middle East into tiny chunks. If Israel can exercise such restraint, why can't Iran?
How can the export of chips to unsavory foreign powers be controlled? Apparently the US government thinks it can do it by simply wishing it were so.
It's a MICROCHIP. How in the hell are you going to prevent such a small item from making its way anywhere in the world? Somebody can just go to a "friendly" nation, buy a shitload of them, throw them in a suitcase and go back to Iran. How are you gonna stop that?
Maybe what we should be investigating are the MOTIVATIONS behind Iran's push for nuclear technology, instead of focusing on the CPUs which happen to crunch the numbers for them?
How do we know the the retrovirus genome didn't originate with the hosts themselves? Did these viruses evolve truly independently, or might they have started out as fragments of genetic code from some larger organism which somehow escaped and became self-sufficient?
In other words, when we look at the human genome and say, "This is riddled with retroviruses!" is it not possible that the retroviruses were actually there all along, and only later became able to leave the parent cell and operate independently?
Are retroviruses actually just chunks of "rebel DNA" from our own genome, or possibly from some other species?
Censorship only serves to INCREASE the amount of "illegal" content by spreading awareness of it. How do you censor something without first telling everybody precisely what they are NOT allowed to say?
How do you prevent the spread of "violent images" when nobody knows what a "violent image" even is? You have to first give an example, which means you are spreading the very images you are trying to restrict. Perhaps in N. Korea there is a law saying, "You may not refer to Kim Jong Il as a Big Fat Poopoo Head." But by the very act of censoring this statement, you broadcast it far and wide.
How can you command someone "Do not say 'X'" without first saying 'X' yourself? The only way to eradicate unpalatable ideas is to ignore them, ignore those who speak of them, and allow them to die out. Banning the idea does nothing except spread it further, to people for whom it may not even have occurred to say 'X', but they're sure as hell thinking about it now that you've told them not to say it.
Who cares if you dissipate the energy. Tell me how you're going to dissipate the momentum. It simply can't be done. Advanced materials can spread momentum out, reducing the pressure of an impact but they CAN NOT reduce the total FORCE of an impact. Unless parts of the armor physical blow away, separate, and fly off carrying bits of momentum with them, you are still going to feel the entire force of impact. I'm not saying these materials are pointless by any means, but it is a basic fact that momentum CAN NOT be "blocked" and you still have do deal with it. No magic armor will protect you against being hit by a locomotive.
Force times distance is WORK, not energy. Can you explain the energy of a photon in terms of "force times distance?" Nope.
What matters in this application isn't energy, but momentum. If the fabric could dissipate ALL the kinetic energy of an explosion/bullet as heat, that would be remarkable but not enough. You can't "dissipate" momentum, regardless of what crazy cool materials you come up with.
In the case of a blast shield covering a window, the strength of the fabric against tearing will allow it to transfer the momentum of the explosive blast to the structure of the building instead of allowing it to blow in through the window. But that only works because the fabric is anchored to the building. Wearing such a fabric will prevent debris from penetrating your body but it will not protect you from the concussive force of an explosion or the raw momentum of a bullet.
People have died from internal injuries after being shot while wearing a bullet proof vest. The bullet was "stopped" in a sense, in that it didn't actually ENTER the victim's body but the momentum still kills.
Why are people on the internet always so eager to think that highly qualified economists at world class Universities will have failed to consider the one blindingly obvious thing to consider about a situation, simply based on reading a one line summary of the relevant paper, in order to prove some clearly stupid point?
I call it the "101 phenomenon." It goes something like: "Any moron learned in physics 101 that that's not possible..." Or "This is statistics 101 stuff, what a bunch of idiots..."
People take course XXX 101 and think they are now experts. When in fact, the true experts took not only 101, but 201, 301, 401, and probably all the way to "40001." And then they TAUGHT each of those classes. And then they wrote a book on it. They know all the little places where XXX 101 actually made simplifications or glossed over complex topics, or made statements that were NOT strictly true but did so for the sake of teachability. In other words, they know so much more than you do that they already thought of your petty objection within the first microsecond and addressed it not much more than a millisecond later. They counter your objections in their sleep, with no conscious effort -- literally.
Usually the hard science is left out of the reporting. That doesn't mean it isn't there. But everybody loves to be an expert just because some journalist worded something badly or took it out of context. If your exposure to a topic is only "101 level," you really have no clue at all and certainly no basis to make a meaningful criticism.
Not at all. A leap in security will take a requisite change in our development tools
The problem is bootstrapping. Sure, this POLA stuff is great. But how do we know that the tools we believe give us these things, are actually working correctly?
If you run "ps" on a computer system and see nothing suspicious, does that mean that nothing is wrong? Ever heard of a root kit? If you can't trust (or you are not SURE that you can trust) the tools you can't trust what the tools produce. See Ken Thompson.
Concepts of secure computing are valuable, but they are just concepts, not implementations.
Defiance? How about trespassing and/or illegal access? I'm usually a stickler for the clean differentiation between copyright infringement and theft, but this is clear-cut. The cable company has invested serious PHYSICAL RESOURCES into their distribution network. It's not just content -- there are wires in the dirt. Do you think that costs nothing?
This wasn't defiance. Just good old thievery.
I think if we ever come up with Star Trek matter replicators, the "IP" crowd wil somehow make them illegal.
Which would prove how completely fucking insane those people are. With the ability to infinitely replicate matter, we are ALL infinitely rich. They seem to think that without restriction on supply, there is no way to profit by selling a scarce resource. They don't grasp the obvious fact that if all resources are unlimited in supply, then we are living in PARADISE.
Well, you're discounting the uplifting and generally wild-ass party-inducing effects of the hot boiling oil.