Stars are immensely more powerful, generally point sources than radio telescopes. So while not optimal at all for long range transmission we can still see their image.(after quite a bit of work, knowing or at least suspecting what we are trying to resolve the image to)
So again, you are solely reliant on the antenna gain you get with a telescope array to be able to reliably transmit information over long distance, and this gain is only valid for free space or similar attenuation.
Another big problem is that for radio astronomy to work in finding alien signals, we must count on stability of civilizations on both ends to make it work, which history shows to be wishful thinking. If aliens do pick up this message and response, who's to say that by the time the response gets here we will have any resources at all to pick it up due to some war or other nonsense or having merely forgot or lost interest about such things over time. The same would seem to apply to the other end(s).
Also, many of the calculations about our signals being able to traverse great distances seem to assume that there is nothing but "free space" in the way, which is an unproven assumption to say the least. Even relatively small amounts of matter from dead stars and such could cause a gravitational scatter of the signal...
Even compact point and shoot cameras haven't made their big brothers obsolete. Try one of the most expensive smaller point and shoots in the store and then compare it to a full size one at a midrange pricepoint, and see the difference.
Photography is quite physically limited. It's all a game of capturing just the right amount of light in a short amount of time without distorting the light in the process. A large chunk of high quality glass is the easiest way to do this. Most people do not want a large chunk of high quality glass on their cellular phone, and even if they were cool with it I doubt it would stay high quality for long being handled that much.
Vendors won't be able to make money off the machines because making money off computers is all about selling people more hardware than they need as breathing room for applications when you can, and then selling other machines at cost as loss leaders to get them interested in your product line. With ChromeOS, there is only one application to standardize on, and so there will be only one configuration, which everyone will sell at or even below cost to remain competitive.
On the other hand, Apple will come out with a new version of iLife every year with new features like face recognition that will find use for newer, more expensive, and therefore higher margin hardware.
That would be true, except, Carbon Dioxide wise, humans are worse for the environment than power plants. A human requires more food energy and emits more CO2 for doing the same amount of [mechanical] work as a gas engine. The benefit of human work is that usually they can get the job done only having to move themselves or a smaller machine(like a bike), and not some big honking multiton hunk of steel too.
However, if you try to get the human to move a big machine, indirectly, you will have to contend with even more [carbon] pollution, both from cellular metabolism and extra costs to make/ship food(food is not an efficient fuel).
I, and a significant portion of the first world population, do not even have a garage. A solution that continuously assumes infrastructure that doesn't exist just to function is usually not practical in the end.
It isn't too uncommon for source code to be confidentially handed over in legal disputes. But this does not entail publicly releasing the source or a right to do so, nor does it somehow make them lose copyright over the code, so its not too unreasonable. It means some lawyer will get to give it to expert(s) to review for the alleged evidence. In this case it seems reasonable as we only have Apple's word that they treated all phones equally in this upgrade with did demonstrably cause some devices to stop functioning properly. Since they were not supported Apple would not normally be liable, but they still have no right to act maliciously and destroy property in the process as alleged.
Are you certain that is a limitation of Silverlight or the developers of your app? From what I know of this topic, I don't see anything about Silverlight that would not make that feature available with any browser. I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong party, and it was the developer of that webapp who decided to code that feature in an IE-specific way for some reason.
You'd be amazed what sane people will try to do on their notebooks and netbooks. At the end of the day it's a 10" computer. For it to not do anything a 10" computer could in theory do is surely a negative any way you try to slice it. For example, I don't have Photoshop on my netbook, but I do have GIMP and Paint.NET. I have used them to do touchups that would have been hard if impossible to do in a web application, if only because I would have had to upload fairly large images. I have edited quick videos on a netbook. Not because I wanted to but because I had it there at the time.
The whole point of a netbook is to have a computer when you normally wouldn't be able to have one with you. If you just want a simple portable data access device, try a smartphone. The iPhone or an Android phone can do everything ChromeOS on a 10" netbook can do, and more. So I'd really ask, if you just want a netbook to check email and search the web, it is in fact YOU who are doing it "wrong".
This is still hard to believe as I doubt it is practical. If Windows has a backdoor in it, which to be useful would be some method of retrieving information from the machine running the OS via the network without proper authentication, what is to stop diagnostics on the network from intercepting the unexpected behavior. Many corporate security products would do just this, and when security teams would audit new images they would do just this too. And many of these tools are based on FOSS OSes and software. I'm not saying it is beyond the ability of the NSA to hide backdoors in plain sight, but again, this would be profound. The only other backdoors would be things that involve physical access or perhaps to bitlocker, but who REALLY thinks these obstacles would stand in the way of the NSA even without a backdoor?
The only effective backdoor would be one built into an application that already used high encryption over the network, like the RDP client or something that would prevent DPI from noticing something strange was going on. But most security conscious organizations would not allow such things that could get past their sniffers.
It also would never work in Chicago because it seems most people in the city who don't already have illegal guns used to commit illegal acts here hate guns. While it is still a law of oppression, it is a popular one. The 2nd amendment doesn't work if its not more than just a right to bear arms, but a responsibility to learn how to defend yourself with one properly and to actually bear it, which almost no one in Chicago would do.
All it would have to do is heat up the fuel tanks to combustion. It may not even have to do that, the thermals on jet fighter engines are insane. The exhaust leaves at far greater than the melting temperature of the alloy the engines are made out of. Therefore all sorts of tricks like laminar airflow cooling are used. However, an external source of heat into the system could totally mess up those cooling techniques...
How about Lawyers? If I was a corporate lawyer in need of a quick buck(or million) who wanted to invent some work for myself, I'd have a friend incorporate a startup and do something that would obviously get a huge legal force to come down on us, and collect the fruits of that labor. And who could actually pierce our corporate veil and claim that spending millions in legal defense against Apple was contrived? Quite necessary at that point. Plus, the lamest thing is even a loss in a complex case like that could look good on a resume for a future related case as an expert consultant to a legal team, perhaps even Apple's!
When it seems like both sides in a case "lose", its usually their lawyers that won.
Because it would be cloud based, they could merely send the finished rasterized frames for cellphones(very little bandwidth), or preprocessed data for desktops/notebooks/things with a GPU which it could then assemble. The whole problem is usually when you do something like this you need to download much more data than you actually need to your machine to view only one small subset of that information. Now, it can send you only the data you need, or all of the data in progressive chunks that you can start to view in full [apparent] quality right away, vs. having to wait to download all the information to have your own machine start assembling it.
The problem IT Pros face is that it is a potential crime to not report CP sightings because you could be said to "endangering children" which is a very broad and yet serious charge. The whole law in this area is far too vague and cloudy for the level of seriousness it comes with, and so you are forced to basically make some innocent person's life even more of a hell than the malware has already, or to assume some liability in case it comes out that you didn't report something.
That's probably the point. DARPA wants to demonstrate empirically that mobile communications have reached the point where ordinary people can coordinate using ordinary technology to achieve what would historically have needed to be a fine tuned professional intelligence operation.
I'm assuming that they literally don't just simply pipe the fumes into the ground people(what is it with/., anyway?), and I'm guessing that's where that's where "Bio Agtive's" IP comes in. It probably works out that purifying the exhaust becomes not only an affordable expense but profitable with this process, hence the pollution benefit. Unfortunately their site is slashdotted right now, so who knows about details. http://www.bioagtive.com/
It's all a matter of fear. Companies know that the current system sucks, but they also know it works for them. There is fear that any change to the system might change competitive advantages or have unforeseen consequences. Its amazing that leading research firms are at their heart very conservative.
In the web development world, it can take quite a long time for something to go from being "useless" to "obsolete". Even with that wishful thinking that WebGL will be viable for this a few years from now, its unlikely all the tools and workflows that now happily play with SVG will move over instantly, and even less likely that the type of devs out there[and many of them] that still haven't moved over to common sense web workflows of the past decade like proper use of CSS are going to be motivated to use WebGL any time soon, either.
That is begging the question. The whole point of the distinction between profit and revenue is that the profit margin can change as a function of revenue.
Say you make $5k a month in revenue by working a job in NYC, but it costs you $k a month to live there. You are offered a new job in Kentucky that pays only $4k per month, but would cost only $1k per month to maintain the same standard of living. Yikes, thats a 20% drop in revenue. But wait, now you are clearing $3k per month and not only $2k, or a profit Increase of 50%!/3rd grade
Now back to business. One of the main technical challenges of EVE is the fact they only have one virtual world, and they devote a ton of engineering and server resources to somehow make that happen. So its very likely the monetary cost of %load varies exponentially with the %load. But the cost per user is linear. So killing user who use disproportionate load will ALWAYS be profitable with these cost functions as long as the total number of users remains above the critical value where the exponential (offset by fixed costs) intersects the line.
Again, thats why its clear that writing analysis is only a positive test. If steps are taken to actively change the style of writing, of course it will fail. It is something like saying an audio recording of someone's voice in a phone call is invalid, because it is possible to speak in a different voice. While true, this doesn't significantly weaken the positive test value.
I don't think anyone has ever sold writing analysis as a unique identifier. But it can be useful. If one was an unpublished author in any significant form, and then "went unabomber" and started to write letters as a calling card, one could deduce from very similar writing styles and structures between the incriminating work and the unpublished/unpopularized previous would would be evidence to at least raise suspicion that the writer of the previous work was somehow uniquely tied to the crimes, even if not directly. Of course, all bets are off if it is plausible that someone could have pre-analyzed the author to imitate. Its also of note, this is only a positive test(i.e. a failed match in analysis makes no claim at all as to whether or not someone wrote it). I good example would be a set of writing that demonstrates an idiom used only in a certain locale, a business term used only in a certain company, and an ideological term used only in a certain fringe political movement. This is reasonable *evidence* of authorship, where of course evidence != proof.
The polygraph, on the other hand, is complete BS because the only real thing a polygraph achieves is psychologically motivate the taker to tell the truth due to "faith" in the fact he will be outted for lying by the device. It doesn't actually measure anything related to the statements, only the physiological condition which can depend on millions of independent factors.
Still, the issue remains, why not just have two computers, a gumstix based box that runs bittorrent 24/7 and forwards the data to a cifs share on the windows box, and then a windows box that is set to sleep when idle but WOL? I see no benefit in tying the low power headless machine to your other computer. I essentially do this now, running my 24/7 tasks on an Atom based desktop and then sleeping my workstation when im not sitting in front of it. I also run my IM client on the remote host too, so the only benefit of their system over mine is they have an API that wakes the host machine on certain events, which I could implement if I really wanted that functionality.
What, so big and powerful companies can't do a really cheap and dirty job to win contracts? Really? My guess is even if Boeing went with Alenia but didn't have a low bid be the main focus of vendor selection, problems like this would not happen and Alenia wouldn't have the cost-cutting motive that caused the change that caused this problem to begin with. Any company or group of engineers can make ugly parts if they are working with an ugly cost envelope.
Slashdot Mirror
Stars are immensely more powerful, generally point sources than radio telescopes. So while not optimal at all for long range transmission we can still see their image.(after quite a bit of work, knowing or at least suspecting what we are trying to resolve the image to) So again, you are solely reliant on the antenna gain you get with a telescope array to be able to reliably transmit information over long distance, and this gain is only valid for free space or similar attenuation.
Another big problem is that for radio astronomy to work in finding alien signals, we must count on stability of civilizations on both ends to make it work, which history shows to be wishful thinking. If aliens do pick up this message and response, who's to say that by the time the response gets here we will have any resources at all to pick it up due to some war or other nonsense or having merely forgot or lost interest about such things over time. The same would seem to apply to the other end(s). Also, many of the calculations about our signals being able to traverse great distances seem to assume that there is nothing but "free space" in the way, which is an unproven assumption to say the least. Even relatively small amounts of matter from dead stars and such could cause a gravitational scatter of the signal...
Even compact point and shoot cameras haven't made their big brothers obsolete. Try one of the most expensive smaller point and shoots in the store and then compare it to a full size one at a midrange pricepoint, and see the difference. Photography is quite physically limited. It's all a game of capturing just the right amount of light in a short amount of time without distorting the light in the process. A large chunk of high quality glass is the easiest way to do this. Most people do not want a large chunk of high quality glass on their cellular phone, and even if they were cool with it I doubt it would stay high quality for long being handled that much.
Vendors won't be able to make money off the machines because making money off computers is all about selling people more hardware than they need as breathing room for applications when you can, and then selling other machines at cost as loss leaders to get them interested in your product line. With ChromeOS, there is only one application to standardize on, and so there will be only one configuration, which everyone will sell at or even below cost to remain competitive. On the other hand, Apple will come out with a new version of iLife every year with new features like face recognition that will find use for newer, more expensive, and therefore higher margin hardware.
That would be true, except, Carbon Dioxide wise, humans are worse for the environment than power plants. A human requires more food energy and emits more CO2 for doing the same amount of [mechanical] work as a gas engine. The benefit of human work is that usually they can get the job done only having to move themselves or a smaller machine(like a bike), and not some big honking multiton hunk of steel too. However, if you try to get the human to move a big machine, indirectly, you will have to contend with even more [carbon] pollution, both from cellular metabolism and extra costs to make/ship food(food is not an efficient fuel).
I, and a significant portion of the first world population, do not even have a garage. A solution that continuously assumes infrastructure that doesn't exist just to function is usually not practical in the end.
It isn't too uncommon for source code to be confidentially handed over in legal disputes. But this does not entail publicly releasing the source or a right to do so, nor does it somehow make them lose copyright over the code, so its not too unreasonable. It means some lawyer will get to give it to expert(s) to review for the alleged evidence. In this case it seems reasonable as we only have Apple's word that they treated all phones equally in this upgrade with did demonstrably cause some devices to stop functioning properly. Since they were not supported Apple would not normally be liable, but they still have no right to act maliciously and destroy property in the process as alleged.
Are you certain that is a limitation of Silverlight or the developers of your app? From what I know of this topic, I don't see anything about Silverlight that would not make that feature available with any browser. I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong party, and it was the developer of that webapp who decided to code that feature in an IE-specific way for some reason.
You'd be amazed what sane people will try to do on their notebooks and netbooks. At the end of the day it's a 10" computer. For it to not do anything a 10" computer could in theory do is surely a negative any way you try to slice it. For example, I don't have Photoshop on my netbook, but I do have GIMP and Paint.NET. I have used them to do touchups that would have been hard if impossible to do in a web application, if only because I would have had to upload fairly large images. I have edited quick videos on a netbook. Not because I wanted to but because I had it there at the time. The whole point of a netbook is to have a computer when you normally wouldn't be able to have one with you. If you just want a simple portable data access device, try a smartphone. The iPhone or an Android phone can do everything ChromeOS on a 10" netbook can do, and more. So I'd really ask, if you just want a netbook to check email and search the web, it is in fact YOU who are doing it "wrong".
This is still hard to believe as I doubt it is practical. If Windows has a backdoor in it, which to be useful would be some method of retrieving information from the machine running the OS via the network without proper authentication, what is to stop diagnostics on the network from intercepting the unexpected behavior. Many corporate security products would do just this, and when security teams would audit new images they would do just this too. And many of these tools are based on FOSS OSes and software. I'm not saying it is beyond the ability of the NSA to hide backdoors in plain sight, but again, this would be profound. The only other backdoors would be things that involve physical access or perhaps to bitlocker, but who REALLY thinks these obstacles would stand in the way of the NSA even without a backdoor? The only effective backdoor would be one built into an application that already used high encryption over the network, like the RDP client or something that would prevent DPI from noticing something strange was going on. But most security conscious organizations would not allow such things that could get past their sniffers.
It also would never work in Chicago because it seems most people in the city who don't already have illegal guns used to commit illegal acts here hate guns. While it is still a law of oppression, it is a popular one. The 2nd amendment doesn't work if its not more than just a right to bear arms, but a responsibility to learn how to defend yourself with one properly and to actually bear it, which almost no one in Chicago would do.
All it would have to do is heat up the fuel tanks to combustion. It may not even have to do that, the thermals on jet fighter engines are insane. The exhaust leaves at far greater than the melting temperature of the alloy the engines are made out of. Therefore all sorts of tricks like laminar airflow cooling are used. However, an external source of heat into the system could totally mess up those cooling techniques...
How about Lawyers? If I was a corporate lawyer in need of a quick buck(or million) who wanted to invent some work for myself, I'd have a friend incorporate a startup and do something that would obviously get a huge legal force to come down on us, and collect the fruits of that labor. And who could actually pierce our corporate veil and claim that spending millions in legal defense against Apple was contrived? Quite necessary at that point. Plus, the lamest thing is even a loss in a complex case like that could look good on a resume for a future related case as an expert consultant to a legal team, perhaps even Apple's! When it seems like both sides in a case "lose", its usually their lawyers that won.
Because it would be cloud based, they could merely send the finished rasterized frames for cellphones(very little bandwidth), or preprocessed data for desktops/notebooks/things with a GPU which it could then assemble. The whole problem is usually when you do something like this you need to download much more data than you actually need to your machine to view only one small subset of that information. Now, it can send you only the data you need, or all of the data in progressive chunks that you can start to view in full [apparent] quality right away, vs. having to wait to download all the information to have your own machine start assembling it.
The problem IT Pros face is that it is a potential crime to not report CP sightings because you could be said to "endangering children" which is a very broad and yet serious charge. The whole law in this area is far too vague and cloudy for the level of seriousness it comes with, and so you are forced to basically make some innocent person's life even more of a hell than the malware has already, or to assume some liability in case it comes out that you didn't report something.
That's probably the point. DARPA wants to demonstrate empirically that mobile communications have reached the point where ordinary people can coordinate using ordinary technology to achieve what would historically have needed to be a fine tuned professional intelligence operation.
I'm assuming that they literally don't just simply pipe the fumes into the ground people(what is it with /., anyway?), and I'm guessing that's where that's where "Bio Agtive's" IP comes in. It probably works out that purifying the exhaust becomes not only an affordable expense but profitable with this process, hence the pollution benefit. Unfortunately their site is slashdotted right now, so who knows about details. http://www.bioagtive.com/
What monster would give his child a toy that looked like that? Freaky.
It's all a matter of fear. Companies know that the current system sucks, but they also know it works for them. There is fear that any change to the system might change competitive advantages or have unforeseen consequences. Its amazing that leading research firms are at their heart very conservative.
In the web development world, it can take quite a long time for something to go from being "useless" to "obsolete". Even with that wishful thinking that WebGL will be viable for this a few years from now, its unlikely all the tools and workflows that now happily play with SVG will move over instantly, and even less likely that the type of devs out there[and many of them] that still haven't moved over to common sense web workflows of the past decade like proper use of CSS are going to be motivated to use WebGL any time soon, either.
That is begging the question. The whole point of the distinction between profit and revenue is that the profit margin can change as a function of revenue. Say you make $5k a month in revenue by working a job in NYC, but it costs you $k a month to live there. You are offered a new job in Kentucky that pays only $4k per month, but would cost only $1k per month to maintain the same standard of living. Yikes, thats a 20% drop in revenue. But wait, now you are clearing $3k per month and not only $2k, or a profit Increase of 50%! /3rd grade
Now back to business. One of the main technical challenges of EVE is the fact they only have one virtual world, and they devote a ton of engineering and server resources to somehow make that happen. So its very likely the monetary cost of %load varies exponentially with the %load. But the cost per user is linear. So killing user who use disproportionate load will ALWAYS be profitable with these cost functions as long as the total number of users remains above the critical value where the exponential (offset by fixed costs) intersects the line.
Again, thats why its clear that writing analysis is only a positive test. If steps are taken to actively change the style of writing, of course it will fail. It is something like saying an audio recording of someone's voice in a phone call is invalid, because it is possible to speak in a different voice. While true, this doesn't significantly weaken the positive test value.
I don't think anyone has ever sold writing analysis as a unique identifier. But it can be useful. If one was an unpublished author in any significant form, and then "went unabomber" and started to write letters as a calling card, one could deduce from very similar writing styles and structures between the incriminating work and the unpublished/unpopularized previous would would be evidence to at least raise suspicion that the writer of the previous work was somehow uniquely tied to the crimes, even if not directly. Of course, all bets are off if it is plausible that someone could have pre-analyzed the author to imitate. Its also of note, this is only a positive test(i.e. a failed match in analysis makes no claim at all as to whether or not someone wrote it). I good example would be a set of writing that demonstrates an idiom used only in a certain locale, a business term used only in a certain company, and an ideological term used only in a certain fringe political movement. This is reasonable *evidence* of authorship, where of course evidence != proof. The polygraph, on the other hand, is complete BS because the only real thing a polygraph achieves is psychologically motivate the taker to tell the truth due to "faith" in the fact he will be outted for lying by the device. It doesn't actually measure anything related to the statements, only the physiological condition which can depend on millions of independent factors.
Still, the issue remains, why not just have two computers, a gumstix based box that runs bittorrent 24/7 and forwards the data to a cifs share on the windows box, and then a windows box that is set to sleep when idle but WOL? I see no benefit in tying the low power headless machine to your other computer. I essentially do this now, running my 24/7 tasks on an Atom based desktop and then sleeping my workstation when im not sitting in front of it. I also run my IM client on the remote host too, so the only benefit of their system over mine is they have an API that wakes the host machine on certain events, which I could implement if I really wanted that functionality.
What, so big and powerful companies can't do a really cheap and dirty job to win contracts? Really? My guess is even if Boeing went with Alenia but didn't have a low bid be the main focus of vendor selection, problems like this would not happen and Alenia wouldn't have the cost-cutting motive that caused the change that caused this problem to begin with. Any company or group of engineers can make ugly parts if they are working with an ugly cost envelope.