27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any othersimilar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
I don't want ANYBODY going into my computer. That's no different than breaking into my house, and stealing. FUCK MICROSOFT
Microsoft Updates and anti-virus protection are completely optional. If you don't want anyone changing files on your computer, you ought to turn off WIndows Updates immediately, and don't run any anti-virus software.
It's a little more like hiring someone to fix your leaky windows, then accusing them of stealing after they replaced the moldy wood framing around the window when they put in the new one because you really loved that wood frame even if it was moldy and you want it returned.
While the intention was definitely good, I personally would not want to use a machine that the could be remotely accessed in such a mannter.
True, something like anti-virus software self-updating and removing a threat would be acceptable to most users. But this is more akin buying a car and discovering the manufacturer has a master key and a representative can come over and drive it around whenever he/she wants, and it's fully legal and you can't do anything about it.
In the end, for better or for worse, I think it's important that we actually own the devices we buy and pay for. Cases like this, and similar ones with Kindles and mobile devices remotely being accessed and modified or used to spy on us, are strong evidence that we do not. (I know that this particular case is not a big deal in of itself, but the fact that Microsoft can do what it did is not good news.)
How do you think Anti-virus software works if it doesn't have a "master key" to your computer that lets it uninstall any application it thinks is malicious?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the phone holds starbucks cards, not credit cards. You connect to starbucks.com to "register" and to setup auto-reload on your starbucks card, in order to earn points. The website caches the CC numbers, the phone holds the starbucks card.
even better... you phone put's your starbucks card in a PDF417 barcode format, making it vulnerable to ocular attack. I could snap a picture of your barcode, and get the benefits of your "auto-reload" starbucks card, and I get free coffee on your dime.
That's what I was thinking.... Not a huge risk and not what I'd be worried about if someone stole my $600 phone. The card number is printed right on the card so its no more risk than if they stole my wallet.
Love my mocha's. Can't tell you how many times I got to a 'local' coffee house and get a crap mocha. Some like to put store bought chocolate syrup in it, others like to add a mocha powder without first turning it into a wet paste. I've had Swiss Miss packets added to a late and told this was their 'Cafe Mocha'.
All in all, I can count on one hand the number of good cafe mocha's I've had at 'local' coffee houses.
On the other hand, every Starbucks I got into, anywhere in the world, seems to have the same Cafe Mocha. It's as if they had a recipe and the barista's were trained to make it. I like being in a town for the first time in my life, finding a Starbucks and feeling a little bit like being at home.
In the end, I reward any store on it's quality, I don't stereotype a store based on it's number of locations or perceived local community value. Would you patron a crap restaurant just because it's "local"?
I think you are confusing quality with consistency... At Starbucks you are getting a known quality, it may not always be the best but its always the same. Independent places can be hit and mis, but usually once you find one that makes a product you like, its always good there. I have a good number of coffee shop choices and I go to one for a good latte and another for a good iced coffee (with coffee ice cubes too). But when I travel I usually go to Starbucks because I know its the same everywhere.
If we assume that TrueCrypt won't mount the volume without all of it present (would RAID even work?) and you remove one of the physical devices from the equation, shouldn't it not even matter whether they have your key? Or is that being naive.
I'm assuming that anyone that's interested enough in your data to try to break the encryption is familiar enough with Truecrypt to not need to run the application itself to decrypt the data.
I'm also assuming, that individual blocks of a truecrypt volume can be decrypted independently of the rest of the volume -- unlike a stream cipher where decrypting each block might depend on the successful decryption of the block before it, Truecrypt needs to be able to randomly seek to and decrypt a random block, from their FAQ:
What will happen when a part of a TrueCrypt volume becomes corrupted?
In encrypted data, one corrupted bit usually corrupts the whole ciphertext block in which it occurred. The ciphertext block size used by TrueCrypt is 16 bytes (i.e., 128 bits). The mode of operation used by TrueCrypt ensures that if data corruption occurs within a block, the remaining blocks are not affected.
I'll be in trouble if I'm ever raided -- I have several USB devices and CD-R's that I used in the past to make a backup of something, and have lost or forgotten the passwords.
I wonder what the penalty would be for someone that filled a device with random data, and the authorities are convinced that it's encrypted and demand the decryption key.
RAID 5 across the internal drive and and 2 external USB drives. Ship the USB drives via separate methods (UPS, FedEx, USPS, whatever) and reassemble on the other end of the trip. Any one missing portion of the volume can be recovered, but no recoverable portion travels as a single unit. And TrueCrypt the whole thing from a USB-stick installation of TC, with keys stored on the USB stick with TC, but not with any of the portions of the actual protected data. Throw in a fake TC volume on the USB stick for indirection.
(And yes, external drives can be put into RAID configurations. Heck, there are videos of floppy RAID setups out there.)
Yes, it's a pain in the ass. But it shouldn't be impossible. If your data is worth that much to keep out of the hands of some numbnuts at DHS/ICE that has "TURRISTS!" on the (lack of?) brain, then it shouldn't be too much to ask, really.
Just beware the $5 wrench.
Since parts of your data will still be recoverable from a single RAID-5 volume, you have little to gain by splitting up a RAID-5 volume set, unless you don't care that someone can recover up to one third of your data.
If you want your laptop to be unreadable without one of the external drives, you'd be better off storing random data on one or more external drives to use as a one-time-pad. Without one of the OTP drives, the data on your laptop is unreadable (for bonus points, encrypt the OTP to reduce the chance that someone can intercept it and copy it). You can fill each OTP drive with the same random data so you only need to receive one of them to recover your data, or fill them with different random data so you need all of the drives to recover data.
Plenty of ports can do DMA, dumping all physical memory without any say by the operating system, all without opening the case. Anything on the PCI bus can do it; do you have an external PCI port? No? Did you know that PCI is routed over DisplayPort? And of course Firewire can do it. And so can ESATA. And laptops have card slots and docking station ports that expose a lot more avenues for attack.
Good luck getting all those disabled, not just in the OS, but in the hardware layer.
I don't think PCI is exposed over DisplayPort... Are you thinking of Thunderbolt (which combines Displayport and PCIe)?
Firewire does have a DMA attack vulnerability, but is eSATA susceptible too? I thought the SATA host controller had to set up DMA transfers, can a client SATA device set up DMA transfers without cooperation from the host controller?
Yes. Also, when they manage to completely ban incandescent bulbs in the EU (or they just stop making them, even the inefficient long life ones) I am buying a few boxes or them and connecting a resistor in series to drop the voltage to make the bulb last longer. With 1.7kW base load (computers and bitcoin miners, another ~600W for AC in the summer) I won't notice the difference in used electricity.
Why would you want to do that? Have you looked at new high quality LED lights? If you dim your 100W incandescent down to where it's only putting out 75W or so of light, you could replace that with a 13W LED and get equivalent light. At 3 hours/day, that 13W LED is saving you about 100KWh/year, or $12 if you're paying 12 cents/KWh, or over $20 in some EU countries.
So you may not notice $12 per lamp in your already high electric bill, but you're still paying for it whether you notice it or not.
You'd need a pretty high wattage resistor and maybe a heatsink to drop the voltage - if you want to drop the voltage by 10%, then you need a 10W resistor. They used to sell little "buttons" that fit in light sockets to increase live span that was just a diode that acted as a half-wave rectifier to reduce the effective voltage at the bulb. Since it's a diode and not a resistor, it doesn't dissipate significant amounts of power. Looks like someone still sells them: http://www.amazon.com/Button-Makes-Bulbs-Longer-Candelabra/dp/B000HMBLAO
The camera and mic need power right? Couldn't you just wire an LED in the same circuit that powers the camera or mic? Sending power to one of them would kick the LED on.
I think the problem with that is that camera only needs to be powered on for a fraction of a second to snap a photo, perhaps short enough that no one would notice the LED flashing on.
Though I guess the hardware circuit that powers the camera could ensure that the LED stays on for several seconds (or minutes) before and after the camera itself gets power - and could even emit an alert sound when the camera is enabled.
Even if the phone is as secure as claimed, one of the biggest violations of privacy is the collection of location data. And no security feature on the device will prevent Verizon/AT&T/etc from knowing what tower it has contacted, or providing that to any agency it wishes to.
Obviously, you can't expect your location to remain anonymous while you're talking on the phone, but you can trust that when you turn off the Cellular radio, that it really is off and you're not being tracked when you drive to your mistresses house. Once you get there, you can use her Wifi to check for voicemails/txt's and still remain anonymous.
...their "The team" page doesn't mention a single software or hardware developer involved in creating the phone. Why aren't they worth to be on display along with the CEOs and whatnot?
Why do you think they've already hired a team to develop their vaporware phone?
> -LED on when camera is taking pictures/recording. > -LED on when microphone is recording.
No, no, no. What you want is a mechanical shutter over the camera, and a switch that physically opens the microphone's circuit (if you want convenience, make the microphone's switch be the camera's shutter).
With an LED, you have to trust the firmware to properly couple the light to the device. With a mechanical shutter, you can verify that it is physically impossible for the camera to see anything.
You don't need to trust the LED to firmware -- instead of a physical switch that turns the camera or microphone on, use a software controlled switch with only 2 hardware states - if the software turns the switch on, microphone+LED (or camera+LED) are enabled, if the software turns the switch off, then they are not enabled. The camera could have a software controlled physical Iris that closes when the camera is off.
Don't let the software control the LED separately.
This is still open to hardware hacks (someone with access to the phone could hardwire the microphone on without the LED illuminating), but the same is true with a physical switch.
> Up stream it was stated that running 100watt 130volt bulbs only deliver 75 watts.
And elsewhere it was said that 110 volt household current in the US (on which the 75 watt number was based) is really 120 volts, not 110.
Depends where you live -- my household voltage is a consistent 111V - My UPS shows that over the past month it's fluctuated from a low of 109.3 to a high of 111.7
Similar for warming chicks. You generally want long service life and don't really care about luminous efficacy. Also 2 or 3 lower wattage bulbs are better than 1 big one (better distribution and redundancy).
Or, you could use a radiant heater so you can separate lighting from warmth and not have to stress the chicks with 24x7 lighting when it's cold and don't need light, or with unnecessary heat when it's warm and you do want light.
> Still, when CFLs are under a buck apiece, and they promise 15 years (and deliver every bit of 4 years), they are still more cost effective.
And when will this be? I just checked on Amazon, and a "100W equivalent" CFL (GE) is just under $2.50 each, and has a rated lifespan of 8,000 hours, a little less than 1 year.
I haven't seen any manufacturer rate consumer bulbs lifetime based on running it 24 hours/day. 3 hours/day seems to be typical, which gives 7.3 years for an 8000 hour CFL, or 14 years for a long life 15,000 hour CFL.
If you replace a 100W incandescent bulb with a 25W CFL and run it for 3 hour/day, you save 82KWh/year, or around $10/year at 12 cents/KWh.
It seems to me that if I was a factory owner making incandescent bulbs and I knew there was a cutoff date to be able to produce them, I'd have already stopped production, or at least planned the stoppage, so US congress changing the rules AFTER I've stopped isn't going to make me start production up again unless they are HUGELY profitable.
If there's money to be made, a Chinese factory will quickly retool to ramp up production -- they may have already bought the equipment from a USA factory that stopped making bulbs in preparation for the ban.
While I've been using 90% CFL's for ten years, I have one fixture in the ceiling of a walk-in closet that needs an incandescent.
The bulb is inverted and is completely covered/enclosed. Can't use a CFL there [overheats the transformer]. Nor a halogen [too hot](?). Don't know about LED's or "high efficiency" incandescents, but the heat dissipation problem seems to be a factor. Can't change the fixture since I'm renting [and the landlord would be loathe to retrofit hundreds of units]. So, I don't have a ready replacement for my one remaining incandescent, so I stocked up on Jan 31. Prematurely, it seems.
While I like CFL's it seems most people don't. Particularly those families that have [small] children, since a broken CFL releases mercury, which is toxic. Also, I prefer the lumen output of a 100 watt equiv (27 watt CFL). Ultimately, I think LED's will be the long term solution. I did buy an LED just to try it, but the brightest I've found is barely the 60 watt equivalent.
This was one of the few cases where the regulation outpaced the technology.
For occasional use like a closet, you can get away with using a CFL in an enclosed fixture, in my last apartment, I had an enclosed base-up ceiling fixture that lasted 10 years with a CFL (I moved out of the apartment after 10 years, the bulb was still working)
But there's no reason you can't use a new high efficiency Halogen bulb - a 72W "100 Watt Equivalent" Halogen bulb is not going to be hotter than a standard 100W incandescent. The glass envelelope inside the glass outer bulb may be hot, but the overall bulb is going to be putting out less heat.
Many places still exist for incandescent 100W bulbs, really nice when my pipes freeze I want to slowly thaw them, and be able to see any leaks. I could run out and buy a heater tape for $10 and a light, or one. Similar for keeping things like a baby chicken, Lizard, etc warm and visible
That sounds like an awfully specialized use for a 100W bulb, and you'd be better off with a rugged service bulb (which weren't covered by the ban) with a rubber coating so a drop of water doesn't shatter the bulb overnight so instead of thawing, your pipes are freezing (again). Heat tape will heat more pipe than a single bulb.
Does this go all the way back to the 100W bulbs that were banned a while back? Or only the recent banning of >40W?
I'll let you in on a little secret: 100W incandescent bulbs are still available. The ban had a loophole for "hard usage incandescents" used in (for instance) outside industrial applications. They're available on Amazon, cost about $2.50 each, and last significantly longer than commercial incandescents. Now that the longevity of CFLs have been value-engineered to worthlessness, I'm switching back to "hard usage" incandescents as my CFLs burn out. I'm interested in LEDs, but I suspect that by the time the price drops significantly, they will also have lost much of their longevity advantage.
But keep in mind that they are rated 100W @ 130V, so at 110V, they are giving out about as much light as an 75W bulb while using 85W of power. It's easy to make an incandescent bulb that lasts for decades - you just need a big, inefficient filament.
In this case it is doubly stupid since CFLs save you money as well...
Not always. I have some fixtures in my house that if I put a CFL in it will burn out in a week or two, but putting a good old incandescent bulb in there will last a year or two. That light is used for about 5 minutes a day, so I save a lot of money by putting in incandescents. Just because on paper something can save you money, doesn't mean that in practice it does. Those figures are from perfect condition labs, not how people actually use them.
Seems unlikely, unless it's your oven light or on a piece of electrical equipment with a big enough motor to cause vibrations and large power spikes. Not even a small enclosed fixture will kill a CFL in 35 minutes.
More like: they thought it was a good thing to ban a simple glass tube with a filament in it and replace it with a circuit board with electrolytic capacitors and a glass tube with mercury vapor in it?
More like, they thought it was a good idea to create light by heating a piece of metal until it glows? How did they find power for their hoverboards when they wasted all that energy with inefficient lighting?
Your posts are certainly starting to sound like jealousy. Between declaring that a 4,000 square foot home is too big, implying that we're desperately running out of room for said houses, and posting links to pretty graphs that show how all the wealthy people are taking your money, you're coming across sounding pretty resentful.
Maybe a little introspection is in order. Or maybe a change in career or even some money management/goal setting is in order.
Jealousy or taking a realistic long view?
I never said we're running out of room for houses, only a 5 year old would think that the biggest problem with building big houses is that they take up too much land - the USA has plenty of buildable land and will continue to have buildable space for the forseeable future. Of course, if we continue to spread everyone out, we'll still need to use a lot of energy to get those people to where they work and play. And in the next energy crunch, once again people will complain about paying $5+/gallon for gas because they have a 50 mile commute to work and their rural community is not served by transit. There are land use and planning concerns, of course, but I don't see that as being the biggest problem.
I was more referring to the other resources (including energy and water) that go into building a maintaining a house. Lumber may be renewable, but the energy used to process it and haul it to your house is not, nor are a lot of other modern building materials like foam insulating sheathing, plastics, paint, etc. And a big house doesn't sit empty - the owner fills it with "stuff", stuff made from resources that are shared with the rest of the world. We'll never run out of anything, it will just become more and more scarce, and harder and more energy intensive to find and process.
It's not just me that thinks that income inequity is a growing problem. Warren Buffet thinks so too. Do you think *he* is jealous too? I'm old enough and have enough retirement savings that income inequity is not likely to affect me adversely in my lifetime - the status quo can likely continue for decades before serious problems result. I could retire today if I wanted to, but chose to work at a non-profit that is actually working to help some of the people in other countries that aren't as fortunate as me. However, if the wealth accumulation at the top continues, my children and their children may find themselves living in a much different country than me.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the relevant California Law, there's a specific exemption for GPS devices:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any othersimilar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
I don't want ANYBODY going into my computer. That's no different than breaking into my house, and stealing.
FUCK MICROSOFT
Microsoft Updates and anti-virus protection are completely optional. If you don't want anyone changing files on your computer, you ought to turn off WIndows Updates immediately, and don't run any anti-virus software.
It's a little more like hiring someone to fix your leaky windows, then accusing them of stealing after they replaced the moldy wood framing around the window when they put in the new one because you really loved that wood frame even if it was moldy and you want it returned.
While the intention was definitely good, I personally would not want to use a machine that the could be remotely accessed in such a mannter.
True, something like anti-virus software self-updating and removing a threat would be acceptable to most users. But this is more akin buying a car and discovering the manufacturer has a master key and a representative can come over and drive it around whenever he/she wants, and it's fully legal and you can't do anything about it.
In the end, for better or for worse, I think it's important that we actually own the devices we buy and pay for. Cases like this, and similar ones with Kindles and mobile devices remotely being accessed and modified or used to spy on us, are strong evidence that we do not. (I know that this particular case is not a big deal in of itself, but the fact that Microsoft can do what it did is not good news.)
How do you think Anti-virus software works if it doesn't have a "master key" to your computer that lets it uninstall any application it thinks is malicious?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the phone holds starbucks cards, not credit cards. You connect to starbucks.com to "register" and to setup auto-reload on your starbucks card, in order to earn points. The website caches the CC numbers, the phone holds the starbucks card.
even better... you phone put's your starbucks card in a PDF417 barcode format, making it vulnerable to ocular attack. I could snap a picture of your barcode, and get the benefits of your "auto-reload" starbucks card, and I get free coffee on your dime.
That's what I was thinking.... Not a huge risk and not what I'd be worried about if someone stole my $600 phone. The card number is printed right on the card so its no more risk than if they stole my wallet.
Love my mocha's. Can't tell you how many times I got to a 'local' coffee house and get a crap mocha. Some like to put store bought chocolate syrup in it, others like to add a mocha powder without first turning it into a wet paste. I've had Swiss Miss packets added to a late and told this was their 'Cafe Mocha'.
All in all, I can count on one hand the number of good cafe mocha's I've had at 'local' coffee houses.
On the other hand, every Starbucks I got into, anywhere in the world, seems to have the same Cafe Mocha. It's as if they had a recipe and the barista's were trained to make it. I like being in a town for the first time in my life, finding a Starbucks and feeling a little bit like being at home.
In the end, I reward any store on it's quality, I don't stereotype a store based on it's number of locations or perceived local community value. Would you patron a crap restaurant just because it's "local"?
I think you are confusing quality with consistency... At Starbucks you are getting a known quality, it may not always be the best but its always the same. Independent places can be hit and mis, but usually once you find one that makes a product you like, its always good there. I have a good number of coffee shop choices and I go to one for a good latte and another for a good iced coffee (with coffee ice cubes too). But when I travel I usually go to Starbucks because I know its the same everywhere.
If we assume that TrueCrypt won't mount the volume without all of it present (would RAID even work?) and you remove one of the physical devices from the equation, shouldn't it not even matter whether they have your key? Or is that being naive.
I'm assuming that anyone that's interested enough in your data to try to break the encryption is familiar enough with Truecrypt to not need to run the application itself to decrypt the data.
I'm also assuming, that individual blocks of a truecrypt volume can be decrypted independently of the rest of the volume -- unlike a stream cipher where decrypting each block might depend on the successful decryption of the block before it, Truecrypt needs to be able to randomly seek to and decrypt a random block, from their FAQ:
What will happen when a part of a TrueCrypt volume becomes corrupted?
In encrypted data, one corrupted bit usually corrupts the whole ciphertext block in which it occurred. The ciphertext block size used by TrueCrypt is 16 bytes (i.e., 128 bits). The mode of operation used by TrueCrypt ensures that if data corruption occurs within a block, the remaining blocks are not affected.
Since parts of your data will still be recoverable from a single RAID-5 volume
Yeah, but it's encrypted. Until they get out the wrench, anyway, which will be a problem with any setup.
If you trust the encryption, why go with the split RAID in the first place?
I'll be in trouble if I'm ever raided -- I have several USB devices and CD-R's that I used in the past to make a backup of something, and have lost or forgotten the passwords.
I wonder what the penalty would be for someone that filled a device with random data, and the authorities are convinced that it's encrypted and demand the decryption key.
RAID 5 across the internal drive and and 2 external USB drives. Ship the USB drives via separate methods (UPS, FedEx, USPS, whatever) and reassemble on the other end of the trip. Any one missing portion of the volume can be recovered, but no recoverable portion travels as a single unit. And TrueCrypt the whole thing from a USB-stick installation of TC, with keys stored on the USB stick with TC, but not with any of the portions of the actual protected data. Throw in a fake TC volume on the USB stick for indirection.
(And yes, external drives can be put into RAID configurations. Heck, there are videos of floppy RAID setups out there.)
Yes, it's a pain in the ass. But it shouldn't be impossible. If your data is worth that much to keep out of the hands of some numbnuts at DHS/ICE that has "TURRISTS!" on the (lack of?) brain, then it shouldn't be too much to ask, really.
Just beware the $5 wrench.
Since parts of your data will still be recoverable from a single RAID-5 volume, you have little to gain by splitting up a RAID-5 volume set, unless you don't care that someone can recover up to one third of your data.
If you want your laptop to be unreadable without one of the external drives, you'd be better off storing random data on one or more external drives to use as a one-time-pad. Without one of the OTP drives, the data on your laptop is unreadable (for bonus points, encrypt the OTP to reduce the chance that someone can intercept it and copy it). You can fill each OTP drive with the same random data so you only need to receive one of them to recover your data, or fill them with different random data so you need all of the drives to recover data.
Plenty of ports can do DMA, dumping all physical memory without any say by the operating system, all without opening the case. Anything on the PCI bus can do it; do you have an external PCI port? No? Did you know that PCI is routed over DisplayPort? And of course Firewire can do it. And so can ESATA. And laptops have card slots and docking station ports that expose a lot more avenues for attack.
Good luck getting all those disabled, not just in the OS, but in the hardware layer.
I don't think PCI is exposed over DisplayPort... Are you thinking of Thunderbolt (which combines Displayport and PCIe)?
Firewire does have a DMA attack vulnerability, but is eSATA susceptible too? I thought the SATA host controller had to set up DMA transfers, can a client SATA device set up DMA transfers without cooperation from the host controller?
Yes. Also, when they manage to completely ban incandescent bulbs in the EU (or they just stop making them, even the inefficient long life ones) I am buying a few boxes or them and connecting a resistor in series to drop the voltage to make the bulb last longer. With 1.7kW base load (computers and bitcoin miners, another ~600W for AC in the summer) I won't notice the difference in used electricity.
Why would you want to do that? Have you looked at new high quality LED lights? If you dim your 100W incandescent down to where it's only putting out 75W or so of light, you could replace that with a 13W LED and get equivalent light. At 3 hours/day, that 13W LED is saving you about 100KWh/year, or $12 if you're paying 12 cents/KWh, or over $20 in some EU countries.
So you may not notice $12 per lamp in your already high electric bill, but you're still paying for it whether you notice it or not.
You'd need a pretty high wattage resistor and maybe a heatsink to drop the voltage - if you want to drop the voltage by 10%, then you need a 10W resistor. They used to sell little "buttons" that fit in light sockets to increase live span that was just a diode that acted as a half-wave rectifier to reduce the effective voltage at the bulb. Since it's a diode and not a resistor, it doesn't dissipate significant amounts of power. Looks like someone still sells them: http://www.amazon.com/Button-Makes-Bulbs-Longer-Candelabra/dp/B000HMBLAO
The camera and mic need power right? Couldn't you just wire an LED in the same circuit that powers the camera or mic? Sending power to one of them would kick the LED on.
I think the problem with that is that camera only needs to be powered on for a fraction of a second to snap a photo, perhaps short enough that no one would notice the LED flashing on.
Though I guess the hardware circuit that powers the camera could ensure that the LED stays on for several seconds (or minutes) before and after the camera itself gets power - and could even emit an alert sound when the camera is enabled.
Even if the phone is as secure as claimed, one of the biggest violations of privacy is the collection of location data. And no security feature on the device will prevent Verizon/AT&T/etc from knowing what tower it has contacted, or providing that to any agency it wishes to.
Obviously, you can't expect your location to remain anonymous while you're talking on the phone, but you can trust that when you turn off the Cellular radio, that it really is off and you're not being tracked when you drive to your mistresses house. Once you get there, you can use her Wifi to check for voicemails/txt's and still remain anonymous.
...their "The team" page doesn't mention a single software or hardware developer involved in creating the phone. Why aren't they worth to be on display along with the CEOs and whatnot?
Why do you think they've already hired a team to develop their vaporware phone?
> -LED on when camera is taking pictures/recording.
> -LED on when microphone is recording.
No, no, no. What you want is a mechanical shutter over the camera, and a switch that physically opens the microphone's circuit (if you want convenience, make the microphone's switch be the camera's shutter).
With an LED, you have to trust the firmware to properly couple the light to the device. With a mechanical shutter, you can verify that it is physically impossible for the camera to see anything.
You don't need to trust the LED to firmware -- instead of a physical switch that turns the camera or microphone on, use a software controlled switch with only 2 hardware states - if the software turns the switch on, microphone+LED (or camera+LED) are enabled, if the software turns the switch off, then they are not enabled. The camera could have a software controlled physical Iris that closes when the camera is off.
Don't let the software control the LED separately.
This is still open to hardware hacks (someone with access to the phone could hardwire the microphone on without the LED illuminating), but the same is true with a physical switch.
> Up stream it was stated that running 100watt 130volt bulbs only deliver 75 watts.
And elsewhere it was said that 110 volt household current in the US (on which the 75 watt number was based) is really 120 volts, not 110.
Depends where you live -- my household voltage is a consistent 111V - My UPS shows that over the past month it's fluctuated from a low of 109.3 to a high of 111.7
Similar for warming chicks.
You generally want long service life and don't really care about luminous efficacy.
Also 2 or 3 lower wattage bulbs are better than 1 big one (better distribution and redundancy).
Or, you could use a radiant heater so you can separate lighting from warmth and not have to stress the chicks with 24x7 lighting when it's cold and don't need light, or with unnecessary heat when it's warm and you do want light.
> Still, when CFLs are under a buck apiece, and they promise 15 years (and deliver every bit of 4 years), they are still more cost effective.
And when will this be? I just checked on Amazon, and a "100W equivalent" CFL (GE) is just under $2.50 each, and has a rated lifespan of 8,000 hours, a little less than 1 year.
I haven't seen any manufacturer rate consumer bulbs lifetime based on running it 24 hours/day. 3 hours/day seems to be typical, which gives 7.3 years for an 8000 hour CFL, or 14 years for a long life 15,000 hour CFL.
If you replace a 100W incandescent bulb with a 25W CFL and run it for 3 hour/day, you save 82KWh/year, or around $10/year at 12 cents/KWh.
It seems to me that if I was a factory owner making incandescent bulbs and I knew there was a cutoff date to be able to produce them, I'd have already stopped production, or at least planned the stoppage, so US congress changing the rules AFTER I've stopped isn't going to make me start production up again unless they are HUGELY profitable.
If there's money to be made, a Chinese factory will quickly retool to ramp up production -- they may have already bought the equipment from a USA factory that stopped making bulbs in preparation for the ban.
While I've been using 90% CFL's for ten years, I have one fixture in the ceiling of a walk-in closet that needs an incandescent.
The bulb is inverted and is completely covered/enclosed. Can't use a CFL there [overheats the transformer]. Nor a halogen [too hot](?). Don't know about LED's or "high efficiency" incandescents, but the heat dissipation problem seems to be a factor. Can't change the fixture since I'm renting [and the landlord would be loathe to retrofit hundreds of units]. So, I don't have a ready replacement for my one remaining incandescent, so I stocked up on Jan 31. Prematurely, it seems.
While I like CFL's it seems most people don't. Particularly those families that have [small] children, since a broken CFL releases mercury, which is toxic. Also, I prefer the lumen output of a 100 watt equiv (27 watt CFL). Ultimately, I think LED's will be the long term solution. I did buy an LED just to try it, but the brightest I've found is barely the 60 watt equivalent.
This was one of the few cases where the regulation outpaced the technology.
For occasional use like a closet, you can get away with using a CFL in an enclosed fixture, in my last apartment, I had an enclosed base-up ceiling fixture that lasted 10 years with a CFL (I moved out of the apartment after 10 years, the bulb was still working)
But there's no reason you can't use a new high efficiency Halogen bulb - a 72W "100 Watt Equivalent" Halogen bulb is not going to be hotter than a standard 100W incandescent. The glass envelelope inside the glass outer bulb may be hot, but the overall bulb is going to be putting out less heat.
Many places still exist for incandescent 100W bulbs, really nice when my pipes freeze I want to slowly thaw them, and be able to see any leaks. I could run out and buy a heater tape for $10 and a light, or one. Similar for keeping things like a baby chicken, Lizard, etc warm and visible
That sounds like an awfully specialized use for a 100W bulb, and you'd be better off with a rugged service bulb (which weren't covered by the ban) with a rubber coating so a drop of water doesn't shatter the bulb overnight so instead of thawing, your pipes are freezing (again). Heat tape will heat more pipe than a single bulb.
Does this go all the way back to the 100W bulbs that were banned a while back? Or only the recent banning of >40W?
I'll let you in on a little secret: 100W incandescent bulbs are still available. The ban had a loophole for "hard usage incandescents" used in (for instance) outside industrial applications. They're available on Amazon, cost about $2.50 each, and last significantly longer than commercial incandescents. Now that the longevity of CFLs have been value-engineered to worthlessness, I'm switching back to "hard usage" incandescents as my CFLs burn out. I'm interested in LEDs, but I suspect that by the time the price drops significantly, they will also have lost much of their longevity advantage.
But keep in mind that they are rated 100W @ 130V, so at 110V, they are giving out about as much light as an 75W bulb while using 85W of power. It's easy to make an incandescent bulb that lasts for decades - you just need a big, inefficient filament.
In this case it is doubly stupid since CFLs save you money as well...
Not always. I have some fixtures in my house that if I put a CFL in it will burn out in a week or two, but putting a good old incandescent bulb in there will last a year or two. That light is used for about 5 minutes a day, so I save a lot of money by putting in incandescents. Just because on paper something can save you money, doesn't mean that in practice it does. Those figures are from perfect condition labs, not how people actually use them.
Seems unlikely, unless it's your oven light or on a piece of electrical equipment with a big enough motor to cause vibrations and large power spikes. Not even a small enclosed fixture will kill a CFL in 35 minutes.
More like: they thought it was a good thing to ban a simple glass tube with a filament in it and replace it with a circuit board with electrolytic capacitors and a glass tube with mercury vapor in it?
More like, they thought it was a good idea to create light by heating a piece of metal until it glows? How did they find power for their hoverboards when they wasted all that energy with inefficient lighting?
Your posts are certainly starting to sound like jealousy. Between declaring that a 4,000 square foot home is too big, implying that we're desperately running out of room for said houses, and posting links to pretty graphs that show how all the wealthy people are taking your money, you're coming across sounding pretty resentful.
Maybe a little introspection is in order. Or maybe a change in career or even some money management/goal setting is in order.
Jealousy or taking a realistic long view?
I never said we're running out of room for houses, only a 5 year old would think that the biggest problem with building big houses is that they take up too much land - the USA has plenty of buildable land and will continue to have buildable space for the forseeable future. Of course, if we continue to spread everyone out, we'll still need to use a lot of energy to get those people to where they work and play. And in the next energy crunch, once again people will complain about paying $5+/gallon for gas because they have a 50 mile commute to work and their rural community is not served by transit. There are land use and planning concerns, of course, but I don't see that as being the biggest problem.
I was more referring to the other resources (including energy and water) that go into building a maintaining a house. Lumber may be renewable, but the energy used to process it and haul it to your house is not, nor are a lot of other modern building materials like foam insulating sheathing, plastics, paint, etc. And a big house doesn't sit empty - the owner fills it with "stuff", stuff made from resources that are shared with the rest of the world. We'll never run out of anything, it will just become more and more scarce, and harder and more energy intensive to find and process.
It's not just me that thinks that income inequity is a growing problem. Warren Buffet thinks so too. Do you think *he* is jealous too? I'm old enough and have enough retirement savings that income inequity is not likely to affect me adversely in my lifetime - the status quo can likely continue for decades before serious problems result. I could retire today if I wanted to, but chose to work at a non-profit that is actually working to help some of the people in other countries that aren't as fortunate as me. However, if the wealth accumulation at the top continues, my children and their children may find themselves living in a much different country than me.