The issues involved with white listing are as follows; 1. Someone has to be available to do it. The admin, or supervisor, has to be at his desk to click OK. What if he is in a meeting, at lunch, on the phone or away from his desk for some reason? The request does not get fulfilled and the employee has to wait. 2. Even if the tech is available he has to switch tasks, check the site out and act on the request. That takes time and is disruptive to normal work flow. 3. Creates an environment of mistrust. If you can not trust your employees to do the right thing, particularly in the tech industry, you shouldn't have hired them in the first place.
If your anti-virus software is so bad that you have to fix computers very often then the problem is with IT and not the users.
From the article it states "The researchers calculated that the device was able to generate 45 microwatts of power with just a single layer of PZT ". That indicates to me that they have yet to measure the output of the device. Considering the state of the art of simulations they may not even have built the actual device.
In the next paragraph they state "the MIT group will have to aim lower in the frequencies they pick up, since few vibrations in nature occur at the relatively high frequency ranges captured by the device." So as it stands it will not work in the real world. Why didn't they aim for real world frequencies first? Maybe they did and it didn't work. I love this statement; "This design allows the bandwidth to be larger, meaning the problem is, in principle, solved." I prefer problems to be in fact solved and not in principle. The target being 100 milliwatt is meaningless as well. They can have any target they want; it does not mean they will reach it.
Yet another preliminary research project that is mainly theoretical looking for funding.
Sorry that I was not clear enough but I was commenting on energy from the grid (which is the context that the article was written in). If I plug in an electrical vehicle, even at night, my electrical bill will indicate that I used more energy from the grid. So coal power plants that would have been put on standby at night now have to burn more coal to generate electricity.
I'm looking at the chart. It shows estimated demand, actual demand, and the maximum output, but it never shows current output. Maybe you could find a chart that shows what you want it to show.
The electricity utilities adjust generation to exactly meet demand therefore actual demand = actual output. If the generators output more then the grid would be over powered and voltages would rise. That is why there is a capacity line and a demand line. At night companies turn of generators because they are not needed. There is a myth that the electricity grid has storage or buffer capacity. That is not true. Energy generated must be almost immediately used or there are problems with the grid. A good example of this was a blackout along the east coast caused by a plant in Canada coming on line before it was supposed to. It caused a cascade failure all along the east coast.
Meanwhile, the chart shows actual demand exceeding estimated demand by about 1 GW/h. So, not only does it not show what you want it to show, but it also shows that estimates are off by as much as 5%.
Maybe you want to try again.
The estimate line is merely a projection of what may happen based on historical data and current weather conditions. The fact the the estimate is off by up to 5% just means that the current demand is a bit higher than the formula calculated. This is also why the available capacity is higher than the demand line. If there is a spike in usage the power companies need to be able to instantly generate the power to meet the demand.
I bet you would say something different if your car was stolen and retrieved due to license plate scans. Many people decry the lack of police officers but are unwilling to pay extra taxes to hire more. Then when the police use technology to "force multiply" the privacy issues are brought up.
Car thieves can be caught using license plate scans. They can also be used to verify alibis when someone is accused of a crime. It does not relieve police of doing their police work as it is impossible for the police to find an individual car. They still have to know who that are looking for, what vehicles they own and they have to put out "be on the lookout" for those vehicles. All the cameras do is add more eyes to the search.
The police department has no interest in where you go, what you do, who you see or how long you meet with any person until the point at which you are accused of a crime. To me, it is a very egocentric position to take to think that are police officers will be following your every move if license plates are scanned. It takes manpower to read and watch those logs and you just are not that important.
Sorry but you missed the entire point of the article. The premise is that electricity demand, as generated and transmitted through the power grid, will decrease for the next decade. You have shown exactly how electric cars will increase electric grid power demand. Whether night or day power will have to be generated by electric companies and transmitted to electric cars. To power these electric cars the power companies will have to build more capacity which is exactly opposite to what the article states.
Powering at night; Very little power is wasted at night as the producers slow down power production at night and emit less. Also with all the solar coming on line there is much more production during the day. I did say the there is an improvement in emissions but that it is not "zero emission". Eighty percent of emissions is not zero emissions.
Nowhere in the article did I see any mention about plug in electric vehicles. As the Volt and others become more popular they may cause an significant increase in energy usage. I read somewhere that a plug-in car is equivalent in energy use to a small house.
This is my issue with the "zero emission" spin that electric car companies are touting; the car may have zero emissions but they cause the electric company to emit more. It is just shifting emissions and not eliminating them. I would agree with decreased emissions as electricity producers are more efficient than IC engines.
Read this sentence from the last paragraph of the article; "Importantly, therefore, before the light from the tiny laser diodes is emitted onto the road, the originally bluish laser light beam is first of all converted by means of a fluorescent phosphor material inside the headlight into a pure white light which is very bright and pleasant to the eye." Therefore no lase light escapes the headlight. This is in effect laser stimulated florescence. The one number they miss in the article is what is the conversion ration between the light incoming to the phosphor and the light given off by the phosphor. It could be 100% but I don't know. After this conversion the light is probably no longer coherent and will disperse like a headlight should.
TOWs are not "smart" in that they do not choose their targets. Now the soldier looking through the sight may not be "smart" enough to avoid being fooled; that is nother question.
The energy density of the battery is 0.576 MJ/kg. The energy density of kerosene type BP Jet A-1, 43.15 MJ/kg. To get the same energy density the battery would have to be 74 times as efficient. That is a bit of a stretch for batteries.
Did you also notice that the helicopter was flown in ground effect which decreases the energy required. One would think he would have tried an endurance test to see how the batteries stood up. 130 second is not a long flight.
I love the part in the article about using batteries and an electric motor to land a helicopter in case the main engine dies. Here are a few issue with that; 1. High cost of batteries and a motor big enough to land the helicopter. 2. Lift capacity decrease due to the weight of batteries and electric motor. 3. The extra fuel needed to carry the weight of the batteries and electric motor causing higher flight costs and shorter range. 4. Maintenance costs on batteries and motor that will probably never be used. Interesting but impractical.
What, does it surprise anyone that a bacterium producing a mind altering compound in the gut would have that compound absorbed and transported via the bloodstream, when we depend on exactly that transport method for manufactured drugs?
I think you may have missed the part about cutting the vagus nerve. With the nerve cut there was no mood enhancing effect. Therefore it is not a compound produced by the organism being transported to the brain.
Parasites alter mood which allows people to do things that want to do. That is not control. Are you saying that antidepressants are mind control drugs? Re you saying a pulled muscle exerts mind control? It defiantly alters behaviour in that one is less active. Look up Mind control and you will see that it is synonymous with brainwashing. The term "mind control" has a specific definition and the only reason it was used in the headline was to sensationalize the article.
Are you saying that when your stomach is upset due to hunger, illness, etc that it does not cause stress? How about when you stub your toe? Does that not increase stress? How about when you get a massage? Does that not decrease stress? What I am trying to say is that positive and negative sensations from the rest of the body induce or relieve stress. There are nerve pathways in both direction between the brain and the digestive tract. Yes, stress causes stomach issue but stomach issues also cause stress. I do not claim all stress starts in the stomach just that some stress does.
Second you might want to look up the definition of control. The relevant definition being "to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command." I do not see any direction, dominance or command that an organism in one's digestive tract exercises. Yes, they influence a mental state; they do not control.
Nowhere have I said that the stomach is in "complete control of the mind". In fact I said the exact opposite that the stomach has no control over the mind. A much more accurate headline would have been "Gut Bacteria Influences Mood".
I think you were right in you initial assessment. If the vagus nerve is intact signals of well being could be transmitted to the brain and reduce stress. There is a difference between no signal and good signals.
When did/. become a tabloid? This has nothing to do with "mind control". Control implies intent and I am pretty sure that a bacteria in the digestive tract have no intent to "explore narrow walkways".
The bacteria makes the stomach feel better and the vagus nerve transmits this feeling to the brain thereby reducing stress. There is a funny thing about stress. The response to stress is not linear it is exponential. If someone under no stress has a little stress added they can deal with it. A person under a lot of stress has the same amount add it can push them over the edge. A good example of this is losing keys. If you are about to leave the house to go for a walk and cant find you keys it is not a problem; most people just delay the walk until they find their keys. Now lose your keys when you are trying to get to the airport with 4 excited children. That small stressor can drive you insane. Same stressor, different initial stress level, different response. So the stomach feeling good lowers stress levels and allows the rodent to handle added stress better. Animals under stress avoid stress.
Do bacteria in the digestive tract affect animals? Yes, by making them feel better and having less stress. Do bacteria in the digestive tract control the mind? No, that do not make animals do things they do not want to do.
When De Beers started diamonds were rare mainly because people did not know where to find them. In the last while prospectors have discovered where to look and diamonds have become much more common. I equate this to the price of aluminum. When it was first smelted aluminum was extremely expensive due to the difficulty in refining. It was even used as the cap on the Washington Monument due to the expense. Once the electrolysis process was discovered the price of aluminum plummeted. The price of diamonds should have as well but De Beers keeps it up.
De Beers popularized diamonds and have continued to perpetuate the rarity myth. One of their common practices is to not sell diamonds to anyone who buys from someone else. This is also a permanent ban; buy from someone else and you can never buy from De Beers again.So a diamond merchant has to stake his livelihood on independent diamond distributors and risk ruin if the distributors can not come through. De Beers also restricts the amount of diamonds they sell too keep the price high. This has decreased somewhat since 2000 when several large players including Canada and Russia started selling diamonds outside the De Beers monopoly.
So let me get this straight; because we throw money away on religion we should throw money away on science. Have you ever heard the "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Interesting pictures, interesting ideas but I don't think it is worth $8.5B+. The clip talked about how big numbers are difficult to comprehend; $8.5B+ is a huge number. I would prefer that money be spent on things that will make life better here on earth. Sorry but finding the origins of the universe does not pass that test.
Here is a quote from the article; '"This case is not about Google creating a compatible platform. It is about Google picking and choosing some Java APIs, but not others, knowing it would create an incompatible platform," it wrote.
Also, Oracle noted that Google itself essentially asserts copyright on its own software. "Notably, Google requires its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- including the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle to prevent fragmentation of the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is similar to Java's, Oracle said.'
So Android implemented the parts of Java that were relevant to mobile devices and ignored the parts that were not. They did this to decrease code size and not as a ploy to create an incompatible platform. They then went on and added APIs that were not covered by Java but were needed for mobile devices. Every Java application does this. If this is an issue they everyone should stop making Java based APIs.
The requirement for OEMS to "maintain the full set of Android APIs" is a condition on being able to call themselves Android. They are not calling it Java and therefore do not need to implement the entire Java API.
Android is not trying to replace Java as a language like Microsoft tried to do. It is just using some APIs as a starting point for a mobile based platform. Oracle is just pissed that Google turned their language into a mobile platform before they did..
Slashdot Mirror
The issues involved with white listing are as follows;
1. Someone has to be available to do it. The admin, or supervisor, has to be at his desk to click OK. What if he is in a meeting, at lunch, on the phone or away from his desk for some reason? The request does not get fulfilled and the employee has to wait.
2. Even if the tech is available he has to switch tasks, check the site out and act on the request. That takes time and is disruptive to normal work flow.
3. Creates an environment of mistrust. If you can not trust your employees to do the right thing, particularly in the tech industry, you shouldn't have hired them in the first place.
If your anti-virus software is so bad that you have to fix computers very often then the problem is with IT and not the users.
From the article it states "The researchers calculated that the device was able to generate 45 microwatts of power with just a single layer of PZT ". That indicates to me that they have yet to measure the output of the device. Considering the state of the art of simulations they may not even have built the actual device.
In the next paragraph they state "the MIT group will have to aim lower in the frequencies they pick up, since few vibrations in nature occur at the relatively high frequency ranges captured by the device." So as it stands it will not work in the real world. Why didn't they aim for real world frequencies first? Maybe they did and it didn't work. I love this statement; "This design allows the bandwidth to be larger, meaning the problem is, in principle, solved." I prefer problems to be in fact solved and not in principle. The target being 100 milliwatt is meaningless as well. They can have any target they want; it does not mean they will reach it.
Yet another preliminary research project that is mainly theoretical looking for funding.
Their target output could be 1watt for all I care; it does not mean they will make their target.
Sorry that I was not clear enough but I was commenting on energy from the grid (which is the context that the article was written in). If I plug in an electrical vehicle, even at night, my electrical bill will indicate that I used more energy from the grid. So coal power plants that would have been put on standby at night now have to burn more coal to generate electricity.
I'm looking at the chart. It shows estimated demand, actual demand, and the maximum output, but it never shows current output. Maybe you could find a chart that shows what you want it to show.
The electricity utilities adjust generation to exactly meet demand therefore actual demand = actual output. If the generators output more then the grid would be over powered and voltages would rise. That is why there is a capacity line and a demand line. At night companies turn of generators because they are not needed. There is a myth that the electricity grid has storage or buffer capacity. That is not true. Energy generated must be almost immediately used or there are problems with the grid. A good example of this was a blackout along the east coast caused by a plant in Canada coming on line before it was supposed to. It caused a cascade failure all along the east coast.
Meanwhile, the chart shows actual demand exceeding estimated demand by about 1 GW/h. So, not only does it not show what you want it to show, but it also shows that estimates are off by as much as 5%.
Maybe you want to try again.
The estimate line is merely a projection of what may happen based on historical data and current weather conditions. The fact the the estimate is off by up to 5% just means that the current demand is a bit higher than the formula calculated. This is also why the available capacity is higher than the demand line. If there is a spike in usage the power companies need to be able to instantly generate the power to meet the demand.
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Notice how the available line almost mirrors the demand line. That is caused by producers taking generators off line.
I bet you would say something different if your car was stolen and retrieved due to license plate scans. Many people decry the lack of police officers but are unwilling to pay extra taxes to hire more. Then when the police use technology to "force multiply" the privacy issues are brought up.
Car thieves can be caught using license plate scans. They can also be used to verify alibis when someone is accused of a crime. It does not relieve police of doing their police work as it is impossible for the police to find an individual car. They still have to know who that are looking for, what vehicles they own and they have to put out "be on the lookout" for those vehicles. All the cameras do is add more eyes to the search.
The police department has no interest in where you go, what you do, who you see or how long you meet with any person until the point at which you are accused of a crime. To me, it is a very egocentric position to take to think that are police officers will be following your every move if license plates are scanned. It takes manpower to read and watch those logs and you just are not that important.
Sorry but you missed the entire point of the article. The premise is that electricity demand, as generated and transmitted through the power grid, will decrease for the next decade. You have shown exactly how electric cars will increase electric grid power demand. Whether night or day power will have to be generated by electric companies and transmitted to electric cars. To power these electric cars the power companies will have to build more capacity which is exactly opposite to what the article states.
Powering at night;
Very little power is wasted at night as the producers slow down power production at night and emit less. Also with all the solar coming on line there is much more production during the day. I did say the there is an improvement in emissions but that it is not "zero emission". Eighty percent of emissions is not zero emissions.
Nowhere in the article did I see any mention about plug in electric vehicles. As the Volt and others become more popular they may cause an significant increase in energy usage. I read somewhere that a plug-in car is equivalent in energy use to a small house.
This is my issue with the "zero emission" spin that electric car companies are touting; the car may have zero emissions but they cause the electric company to emit more. It is just shifting emissions and not eliminating them. I would agree with decreased emissions as electricity producers are more efficient than IC engines.
Read this sentence from the last paragraph of the article; "Importantly, therefore, before the light from the tiny laser diodes is emitted onto the road, the originally bluish laser light beam is first of all converted by means of a fluorescent phosphor material inside the headlight into a pure white light which is very bright and pleasant to the eye." Therefore no lase light escapes the headlight. This is in effect laser stimulated florescence. The one number they miss in the article is what is the conversion ration between the light incoming to the phosphor and the light given off by the phosphor. It could be 100% but I don't know. After this conversion the light is probably no longer coherent and will disperse like a headlight should.
TOWs are not "smart" in that they do not choose their targets. Now the soldier looking through the sight may not be "smart" enough to avoid being fooled; that is nother question.
The energy density of the battery is 0.576 MJ/kg. The energy density of kerosene type BP Jet A-1, 43.15 MJ/kg. To get the same energy density the battery would have to be 74 times as efficient. That is a bit of a stretch for batteries.
Did you also notice that the helicopter was flown in ground effect which decreases the energy required. One would think he would have tried an endurance test to see how the batteries stood up. 130 second is not a long flight.
I love the part in the article about using batteries and an electric motor to land a helicopter in case the main engine dies. Here are a few issue with that;
1. High cost of batteries and a motor big enough to land the helicopter.
2. Lift capacity decrease due to the weight of batteries and electric motor.
3. The extra fuel needed to carry the weight of the batteries and electric motor causing higher flight costs and shorter range.
4. Maintenance costs on batteries and motor that will probably never be used.
Interesting but impractical.
This was unexpected?
What, does it surprise anyone that a bacterium producing a mind altering compound in the gut would have that compound absorbed and transported via the bloodstream, when we depend on exactly that transport method for manufactured drugs?
I think you may have missed the part about cutting the vagus nerve. With the nerve cut there was no mood enhancing effect. Therefore it is not a compound produced by the organism being transported to the brain.
Parasites alter mood which allows people to do things that want to do. That is not control. Are you saying that antidepressants are mind control drugs? Re you saying a pulled muscle exerts mind control? It defiantly alters behaviour in that one is less active. Look up Mind control and you will see that it is synonymous with brainwashing. The term "mind control" has a specific definition and the only reason it was used in the headline was to sensationalize the article.
Are you saying that when your stomach is upset due to hunger, illness, etc that it does not cause stress? How about when you stub your toe? Does that not increase stress? How about when you get a massage? Does that not decrease stress? What I am trying to say is that positive and negative sensations from the rest of the body induce or relieve stress. There are nerve pathways in both direction between the brain and the digestive tract. Yes, stress causes stomach issue but stomach issues also cause stress. I do not claim all stress starts in the stomach just that some stress does.
Second you might want to look up the definition of control. The relevant definition being "to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command." I do not see any direction, dominance or command that an organism in one's digestive tract exercises. Yes, they influence a mental state; they do not control.
Nowhere have I said that the stomach is in "complete control of the mind". In fact I said the exact opposite that the stomach has no control over the mind. A much more accurate headline would have been "Gut Bacteria Influences Mood".
I think you were right in you initial assessment. If the vagus nerve is intact signals of well being could be transmitted to the brain and reduce stress. There is a difference between no signal and good signals.
When did /. become a tabloid? This has nothing to do with "mind control". Control implies intent and I am pretty sure that a bacteria in the digestive tract have no intent to "explore narrow walkways".
The bacteria makes the stomach feel better and the vagus nerve transmits this feeling to the brain thereby reducing stress. There is a funny thing about stress. The response to stress is not linear it is exponential. If someone under no stress has a little stress added they can deal with it. A person under a lot of stress has the same amount add it can push them over the edge. A good example of this is losing keys. If you are about to leave the house to go for a walk and cant find you keys it is not a problem; most people just delay the walk until they find their keys. Now lose your keys when you are trying to get to the airport with 4 excited children. That small stressor can drive you insane. Same stressor, different initial stress level, different response. So the stomach feeling good lowers stress levels and allows the rodent to handle added stress better. Animals under stress avoid stress.
Do bacteria in the digestive tract affect animals? Yes, by making them feel better and having less stress. Do bacteria in the digestive tract control the mind? No, that do not make animals do things they do not want to do.
The way I remember the difference is that when one goes from loose, as in not tight, to lose, as in misplace something, you lose an 'o',
When De Beers started diamonds were rare mainly because people did not know where to find them. In the last while prospectors have discovered where to look and diamonds have become much more common. I equate this to the price of aluminum. When it was first smelted aluminum was extremely expensive due to the difficulty in refining. It was even used as the cap on the Washington Monument due to the expense. Once the electrolysis process was discovered the price of aluminum plummeted. The price of diamonds should have as well but De Beers keeps it up.
De Beers popularized diamonds and have continued to perpetuate the rarity myth. One of their common practices is to not sell diamonds to anyone who buys from someone else. This is also a permanent ban; buy from someone else and you can never buy from De Beers again.So a diamond merchant has to stake his livelihood on independent diamond distributors and risk ruin if the distributors can not come through. De Beers also restricts the amount of diamonds they sell too keep the price high. This has decreased somewhat since 2000 when several large players including Canada and Russia started selling diamonds outside the De Beers monopoly.
Without defence one's science would soon belong to someone else.
So let me get this straight; because we throw money away on religion we should throw money away on science. Have you ever heard the "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Interesting pictures, interesting ideas but I don't think it is worth $8.5B+. The clip talked about how big numbers are difficult to comprehend; $8.5B+ is a huge number. I would prefer that money be spent on things that will make life better here on earth. Sorry but finding the origins of the universe does not pass that test.
Here is a quote from the article;
'"This case is not about Google creating a compatible platform. It is about Google picking and choosing some Java APIs, but not others, knowing it would create an incompatible platform," it wrote.
Also, Oracle noted that Google itself essentially asserts copyright on its own software. "Notably, Google requires its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- including the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle to prevent fragmentation of the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is similar to Java's, Oracle said.'
So Android implemented the parts of Java that were relevant to mobile devices and ignored the parts that were not. They did this to decrease code size and not as a ploy to create an incompatible platform. They then went on and added APIs that were not covered by Java but were needed for mobile devices. Every Java application does this. If this is an issue they everyone should stop making Java based APIs.
The requirement for OEMS to "maintain the full set of Android APIs" is a condition on being able to call themselves Android. They are not calling it Java and therefore do not need to implement the entire Java API.
Android is not trying to replace Java as a language like Microsoft tried to do. It is just using some APIs as a starting point for a mobile based platform. Oracle is just pissed that Google turned their language into a mobile platform before they did..