Diesels can actually get quite small, but when they do they become much more inefficient. You still need just as much pressure to fire the thing, and heat loses are greater, which, admittedly, allows you to run faster without cooling, but which also increases many inefficiencies. I suspect it would be possible to make one that you could hold in one hand, but you couldn't use it for much.
There are reasons why the smallest diesel in common use is the automobile diesel, and why larger things, like locomotives, use diesels rather than a 4-cycle or 2-cycle engine. It's not that you can't make them smaller, it's that it's a bad idea.
Be fair. There *will* be edge cases where a pure internal combustion engine will have an advantage over hybrids. That I can't think of any off hand merely says they aren't ones that I encounter.
For me the problem with an electric would be I have no way to charge it. The garage doesn't have electric power, and it has solid concrete walls, and don't talk about getting a variance through the city for construction.
It doesn't really matter, as I don't drive, but if I did a pure electric would be out of the question. A Prius, perhaps...but not a Volt.
OTOH, Ford has a bad reputation for quality...so they'd really need to work to get me to even consider them. And automatic updates are *not* something that helps.
My word, but there are a lot of trolls posting on this story. I do wonder how many are being paid to do so...and who would fund an astroturf campaign, though they don't all seem to have the same playbook.
If the changes are persistent, as at least some of the sources have indicated, then this *is* a serious problem, but probably only for people targeted by state actors. (OTOH, sometimes those "state actors" have a pretty loose focus to their targeting, and it's not unknown for their code to have bugs.)
This, of course, doesn't excuse their mode of announcing this, but it suggests that some group may have caused those "bugs" to be present intentionally...and that they may have been known (by some) for quite awhile.
OTOH, if it's not persistent, then it's not clear to me what is gained by anyone except Intel and stock market manipulators. So I suspect Intel of managing the process of revelation, possibly in a criminal way. And I suspect someone of (attempted?) stock market manipulation. I have no proof of either, and one doesn't exclude the other.
Valid questions, but you put too much certainty behind them. Certainly I suspect that Intel somehow sponsored this, but I don't see any reason to feel certain. MS also has derived some benefit from this, as it's distracted people from complaining about MSWindows10 misdeeds. And it could be a pure attempt at financial gain by manipulating the stock market. There are probably a few other possibilities.
IIUC Spectre requires hardware level changes to all processors that engage in speculative execution. Also it requires a level of access not required by the Meltdown flaw (i.e. Intel) and is also not as privilege breaking.
That said, Spectre still needs to be addressed, it's just that no remote exploits are yet known. But Meltdown (Intel) is remotely exploitable by, e.g., web browser javascript.
The current articles attaching AMD are almost certainly either psychowar or attempted market manipulation (or some of each, possibly by independent parties). That said, the announced flaws could actually be real, and they could actually be serious. The info I've run across doesn't allow me to decide whether or not it's propaganda fraud as well as psychowar and possibly stock market fraud.
Your assertion that those actions aren't illegal is, at best, questionable. IIUC they would be guilty of stock market manipulation and you would be and accessory before the fact.
OTOH, it is true that such crimes are rarely prosecuted, and are difficult to detect. This doesn't keep them from being crimes.
IIRC someone did something similar for some Cisco routers. It was a targeted attack, not a global attack, but it wasn't narrowly targeted.
So the scenario isn't unreasonable. A state actor would be the most likely perpetrator, and the attacks would be mildly targeted (systems shipped from location X to foreign location Y between dates D1 and D2). Saying this can't be done is denying that things that have been detected once can happen again.
Well, the variation in rotational speed of the sample is pretty high, but it *is* interesting that it isn't higher. The summary didn't say if there was a correlation between galaxy size and measured rotational speed, so they may not have noticed one. Either having one or not having one would be interesting, and limit the explanations.
OTOH, I do agree that "all" is a bit of an overstatement. Even "all observable" wouldn't justify "all", and the method of observation requires that the galaxy be nearly edge on to us so that we can get a good Doppler reading. This strongly limits even the possible sample size. But even this small set is sufficient to place limits on models of galaxy organization.
Every example on the link showed only one window open. Sorry, that implies that they think I'm using a smartphone. I can't tell without additional checking, but it looks as if it's unusable for my use case, as I normally have several windows open in different applications. Even if this is possible at the moment in this release, I have a hard time trusting that they will keep the capability around. They've arbitrarily made changes too often in the past...and it's clearly not something they're interested in.
Did you notice that the article headline includes the word "Allegedly"?
It may be serious, but it may not. The claims sound pretty bad, but I can't evaluate how seriously to take them, and it sounds as if CNet wasn't willing to actually accept them. We'll see after some others evaluate the issue.
You are right, because the laws are rarely justly applied to the powerful.
But MS has exhibited this variety of "mistake" too often fro me to believe that that's what's actually going on. Fortunately, I ditched their systems back around 2000 over disagreements with the EULA, so I've no personal stake in this.
I thought that rule came out of the Boer War in South Africa. Fleming may have repeated it, because it's a reasonable thing to believe, but he didn't originate it. (I'm not sure it's original with the Boer War. It may well be older.)
FWIW, I think this happened under one of the Bushes. I seem to remember that this suit was originally filed quite a long time ago.
OTOH, it could be just so similar to something that happened back then, that I've confused things. But it's not unusual for legal cases to take a long time. SCOx vs IBM may not be settled yet.
That said, the summary indicates that this happened under Obama. And that's certainly possible. It just seems like something I read about a really long time ago. If someone said Regan, I'd've said "Well, not quite that long ago.".
The problem is that it *is* a concentrated energy source, and it's being handled as waste. Because it's a concentrated energy source it's dangerous. Because it's being handled as waste, it's not being cared for properly. This is a very bad combination.
Nuclear reprocessing can be used to cut down certain radionuclides, and when done (not usually) it reduced the problem. But a fast breeder, or a couple of other designs, are suppose to burn all the radioactive isotopes. And they haven't been built and aren't being built. The government would rather let nuclear "waste" accumulate, or bury it in a pit for future generations to deal with, so just ignore the problem. (I count storing it on site as essentially ignoring the problem.)
The way the government is dealing with "nuclear waste" makes it extremely for me to even give tepid support to fission power. The "ostrich approach" to problem solving is almost never a good idea.
Well, I can't remember where I read the thing I was originally paraphrasing, and your link is rather explicit. (I'd recommend anyone interested in this to check it out. https://warisboring.com/the-sc...
If it's dust particles, some of it will get into the air. If it's dust on people's feet, then they're going to be shaking off fragments into the air with every step.
That said, I'll agree that something that heavy wouldn't float around in the air for long. But small particles, even of very heavy metals, are light, and will spread attached to larger particles of lighter stuff which are dust. With every step people raise small (or sometimes not so small) clouds of dust from the stuff they step on.
OTOH, perhaps the counters should be placed below knee height.
IIUC, systematic Plutonium is a lot worse than you are indicating. And tends to lodge in the bone marrow, leading to leukemia. And my guess is that "30 years" is an estimate which is assuming a minimal exposure. At one point, IIRC, what they recommended was "if that gets in an open wound, go for immediate high amputation". That was probably a bit extreme, and I don't know what it was based on, but it makes your "No problem" evaluation seem extremely dubious.
The problem is, those potential reactors to burn the "spent fuel" (which isn't all decaying that rapidly, though of course the most radioactive parts are) don't exist. They are designs, which might or might not work, which might or might not be cost effective, and which might or might not eventually be built.
Until they exist, spent fuel is radioactive waste. And there's nothing "false" about that, or about worrying about that. Until that problem (and a few administrative issues) are dealt with, I really can't support fission power.
What's the difference between year round Daylight Saving Time and year round Standard Time? Neither businesses nor government are required to set their start times at any particular time.
The only difference is that Standard Time is a little be easier to calculate. If the sun is half-way between East and West at noon, then it's Standard Time. In most parts of the time zone this won't be really true anyway, so say if it's "just about half-way" instead of exactly half-way (which would be the standard time at the exact location).
But since nothing is required to happen at any particular time of the clock, over time things will adapt to whichever you choose to have as permanent. And it won't make any difference which you choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Diesels can actually get quite small, but when they do they become much more inefficient. You still need just as much pressure to fire the thing, and heat loses are greater, which, admittedly, allows you to run faster without cooling, but which also increases many inefficiencies. I suspect it would be possible to make one that you could hold in one hand, but you couldn't use it for much.
There are reasons why the smallest diesel in common use is the automobile diesel, and why larger things, like locomotives, use diesels rather than a 4-cycle or 2-cycle engine. It's not that you can't make them smaller, it's that it's a bad idea.
Be fair. There *will* be edge cases where a pure internal combustion engine will have an advantage over hybrids. That I can't think of any off hand merely says they aren't ones that I encounter.
For me the problem with an electric would be I have no way to charge it. The garage doesn't have electric power, and it has solid concrete walls, and don't talk about getting a variance through the city for construction.
It doesn't really matter, as I don't drive, but if I did a pure electric would be out of the question. A Prius, perhaps...but not a Volt.
OTOH, Ford has a bad reputation for quality...so they'd really need to work to get me to even consider them. And automatic updates are *not* something that helps.
No. And you won't reach the end of it. It's an overly simplified causal model, but it has it's element of truth.
My word, but there are a lot of trolls posting on this story. I do wonder how many are being paid to do so...and who would fund an astroturf campaign, though they don't all seem to have the same playbook.
If the changes are persistent, as at least some of the sources have indicated, then this *is* a serious problem, but probably only for people targeted by state actors. (OTOH, sometimes those "state actors" have a pretty loose focus to their targeting, and it's not unknown for their code to have bugs.)
This, of course, doesn't excuse their mode of announcing this, but it suggests that some group may have caused those "bugs" to be present intentionally...and that they may have been known (by some) for quite awhile.
OTOH, if it's not persistent, then it's not clear to me what is gained by anyone except Intel and stock market manipulators. So I suspect Intel of managing the process of revelation, possibly in a criminal way. And I suspect someone of (attempted?) stock market manipulation. I have no proof of either, and one doesn't exclude the other.
Since I'm my own systems administrator, I *do* want to have total control, even though I sure don't want to have to use it.
Your argument seems to boil down to "Even though you 'bought' the device you don't own it.".
Valid questions, but you put too much certainty behind them. Certainly I suspect that Intel somehow sponsored this, but I don't see any reason to feel certain. MS also has derived some benefit from this, as it's distracted people from complaining about MSWindows10 misdeeds. And it could be a pure attempt at financial gain by manipulating the stock market. There are probably a few other possibilities.
IIUC Spectre requires hardware level changes to all processors that engage in speculative execution. Also it requires a level of access not required by the Meltdown flaw (i.e. Intel) and is also not as privilege breaking.
That said, Spectre still needs to be addressed, it's just that no remote exploits are yet known. But Meltdown (Intel) is remotely exploitable by, e.g., web browser javascript.
The current articles attaching AMD are almost certainly either psychowar or attempted market manipulation (or some of each, possibly by independent parties). That said, the announced flaws could actually be real, and they could actually be serious. The info I've run across doesn't allow me to decide whether or not it's propaganda fraud as well as psychowar and possibly stock market fraud.
Your assertion that those actions aren't illegal is, at best, questionable. IIUC they would be guilty of stock market manipulation and you would be and accessory before the fact.
OTOH, it is true that such crimes are rarely prosecuted, and are difficult to detect. This doesn't keep them from being crimes.
IIRC someone did something similar for some Cisco routers. It was a targeted attack, not a global attack, but it wasn't narrowly targeted.
So the scenario isn't unreasonable. A state actor would be the most likely perpetrator, and the attacks would be mildly targeted (systems shipped from location X to foreign location Y between dates D1 and D2). Saying this can't be done is denying that things that have been detected once can happen again.
Well, the variation in rotational speed of the sample is pretty high, but it *is* interesting that it isn't higher. The summary didn't say if there was a correlation between galaxy size and measured rotational speed, so they may not have noticed one. Either having one or not having one would be interesting, and limit the explanations.
OTOH, I do agree that "all" is a bit of an overstatement. Even "all observable" wouldn't justify "all", and the method of observation requires that the galaxy be nearly edge on to us so that we can get a good Doppler reading. This strongly limits even the possible sample size. But even this small set is sufficient to place limits on models of galaxy organization.
Every example on the link showed only one window open. Sorry, that implies that they think I'm using a smartphone. I can't tell without additional checking, but it looks as if it's unusable for my use case, as I normally have several windows open in different applications. Even if this is possible at the moment in this release, I have a hard time trusting that they will keep the capability around. They've arbitrarily made changes too often in the past...and it's clearly not something they're interested in.
He might not be defending Intel so much as trying to distract people from the MS fiasco.
Did you notice that the article headline includes the word "Allegedly"?
It may be serious, but it may not. The claims sound pretty bad, but I can't evaluate how seriously to take them, and it sounds as if CNet wasn't willing to actually accept them. We'll see after some others evaluate the issue.
You are right, because the laws are rarely justly applied to the powerful.
But MS has exhibited this variety of "mistake" too often fro me to believe that that's what's actually going on. Fortunately, I ditched their systems back around 2000 over disagreements with the EULA, so I've no personal stake in this.
I thought that rule came out of the Boer War in South Africa. Fleming may have repeated it, because it's a reasonable thing to believe, but he didn't originate it. (I'm not sure it's original with the Boer War. It may well be older.)
Well, they're claiming it was a mistake. Believe them if you wan to.
FWIW, I think this happened under one of the Bushes. I seem to remember that this suit was originally filed quite a long time ago.
OTOH, it could be just so similar to something that happened back then, that I've confused things. But it's not unusual for legal cases to take a long time. SCOx vs IBM may not be settled yet.
That said, the summary indicates that this happened under Obama. And that's certainly possible. It just seems like something I read about a really long time ago. If someone said Regan, I'd've said "Well, not quite that long ago.".
The problem is that it *is* a concentrated energy source, and it's being handled as waste. Because it's a concentrated energy source it's dangerous. Because it's being handled as waste, it's not being cared for properly. This is a very bad combination.
Nuclear reprocessing can be used to cut down certain radionuclides, and when done (not usually) it reduced the problem. But a fast breeder, or a couple of other designs, are suppose to burn all the radioactive isotopes. And they haven't been built and aren't being built. The government would rather let nuclear "waste" accumulate, or bury it in a pit for future generations to deal with, so just ignore the problem. (I count storing it on site as essentially ignoring the problem.)
The way the government is dealing with "nuclear waste" makes it extremely for me to even give tepid support to fission power. The "ostrich approach" to problem solving is almost never a good idea.
Well, I can't remember where I read the thing I was originally paraphrasing, and your link is rather explicit. (I'd recommend anyone interested in this to check it out. https://warisboring.com/the-sc...
If it's dust particles, some of it will get into the air. If it's dust on people's feet, then they're going to be shaking off fragments into the air with every step.
That said, I'll agree that something that heavy wouldn't float around in the air for long. But small particles, even of very heavy metals, are light, and will spread attached to larger particles of lighter stuff which are dust. With every step people raise small (or sometimes not so small) clouds of dust from the stuff they step on.
OTOH, perhaps the counters should be placed below knee height.
IIUC, systematic Plutonium is a lot worse than you are indicating. And tends to lodge in the bone marrow, leading to leukemia. And my guess is that "30 years" is an estimate which is assuming a minimal exposure. At one point, IIRC, what they recommended was "if that gets in an open wound, go for immediate high amputation". That was probably a bit extreme, and I don't know what it was based on, but it makes your "No problem" evaluation seem extremely dubious.
The problem is, those potential reactors to burn the "spent fuel" (which isn't all decaying that rapidly, though of course the most radioactive parts are) don't exist. They are designs, which might or might not work, which might or might not be cost effective, and which might or might not eventually be built.
Until they exist, spent fuel is radioactive waste. And there's nothing "false" about that, or about worrying about that. Until that problem (and a few administrative issues) are dealt with, I really can't support fission power.
What's the difference between year round Daylight Saving Time and year round Standard Time? Neither businesses nor government are required to set their start times at any particular time.
The only difference is that Standard Time is a little be easier to calculate. If the sun is half-way between East and West at noon, then it's Standard Time. In most parts of the time zone this won't be really true anyway, so say if it's "just about half-way" instead of exactly half-way (which would be the standard time at the exact location).
But since nothing is required to happen at any particular time of the clock, over time things will adapt to whichever you choose to have as permanent. And it won't make any difference which you choose.