Mechanical circuit switching is long dead, and electronic circuit switching is no more limited in capacity than packet switching. The reason long distance was more expensive was that in the old days it really was very expensive to install a lot of long distance capacity, and this was true for data as well as voice. Fibre changed all that, so if they're still charging a fortune it's solely because they can. Some phone companies here in the UK offer unlimited international calls (to come countries) in their bundles, but there's now a (regulator enforced) competitive market. The old monopoly telco, BT, would never have done anything like that.
100Mbps is plenty for a home user. Yes, yes, 640k will be enough for anyone, etc. But really, what will need more than that? That's enough for many simultaneous high definition video streams. VDSL2 allows easily good enough performance at a far lower cost than putting new cabling in.
The coax infrastructure is also far less widely available than the twisted pair. In my country, only about 50% of the population have access to it, compared to nearly everyone for the phone lines. If you're going to deploy entirely new cabling, you might as well make it fibre and avoid the need for powered equipment in the field - the coax, like the twisted pair, is only worthwhile because it's already there.
Breeder reactors are a bitch to work. As far as I know, there is no successful commercial program on the horizon.
The Russians have had some luck - the BN-600 reactor has a load factor comparable to their conventional reactors. How *safe* it is I'm not sure, but the reliability's not bad for such an old design.
I didn't ask about the price of solar. Solar power could be.00001 cents per kWH for all I care.
If it really was that cheap you could store the energy as heat in a molten salt. Resistance heat to melt the salt, then a steam turbine to convert the heat back into electricity. You'd only get about 40% round-trip efficiency, but that wouldn't matter if the starting energy only cost a cent per kWh.
Take Scotland as an example. Using wind they meet your base load requirement. Yes, locally wind speed varies, but over the entire country there is always enough energy being produced to supply a certain amount of base load.
No there isn't (unless "a certain amount" is about 5% of installed wind capacity). This shows UK generation status. Wind has actually been quite stable over the past couple of days, but I've often seen it down near zero.
Furthermore wind speed is very predictable over the short term, and you can always keep some idling gas plants around to fill in those rare occasions when you need more energy.
Indeed you can, but what if you want, say, 50% of the electricity to be provided by wind on average? Baseload is about 50-60% of average (for the UK, which is what I'm familiar with). At a load factor of 30% that implies that at anything higher than 20% of electricity from wind (on average) means that sometimes there'll be more wind power generated than the grid can make use of. Generating electricity when nobody wants it isn't economic.
The other Item more power helps us with Is running Migrations at higher frequencies. right now we record at 250Hz(125 nyquest) but only process at 60Hz, This is mainly due to the price of computer time. doubling to 120Hz requires 4 times more computer time.
Worse than that, doubling the frequency requires 16 times the computer time, as you need to halve your spatial sampling interval to prevent aliasing. Assuming we're talking about wave equation based techniques such as RTM.
This is one of those areas which is still very much "no matter how powerful the computer, we'll use it all".
Maybe you can't, I don't know. If not it's a limitation of Windows or the SMB server in question.
The Windows firewall is a way of letting the user decide what is and isn't authorised rather than the application, which is a useful function. The problem with separate firewall boxes is that's not really possible for the average user to do that - configuring them is rather unintuitive to say the least. And having UPnP defeats the point of the firewall, as it means the application makes the decision - but it's quite capable of doing that on its own without a separate firewall box. Having such firewalls as standard will encourage application writers to rely on it, i.e. to assume the network is secure by default. I'd consider it bad practice for applications or operating systems to rely on external security measures, particularly in the modern era of mobile devices and untrusted networks.
What's wrong with that? Looks correct to me. Unless you're referring to the indicative "are" rather than subjunctive "be" - but that's an American requirement. The subjunctive is pretty much dead in British English.
So have the SMB server only accept connections from the local network. Same result.
As an added bonus, you won't accidentally leave your machine unprotected if you connect it to different network - a common thing to do with mobile devices and wireless.
That seems a bit pointless. Why have a firewall if you're going to let anything open it up? Just as effective would be to have no firewall and simply don't open ports on the end machines if you don't want to accept connections.
France still has a notion & law that no-one should work more than 35 hours per week. Evidently, you can't get anything done as such - even the french agree, and most work more than this limit.
I can get plenty done in my 37.5 hour (excluding lunches) week. In fact, I'm noticeably less efficient and reliable towards the end of the day, so 35 hours sounds pretty much ideal.
What's the point in an efficient industrial economy if you still have to work just as much?
There's nothing arbitrary about it. If your traffic needs to traverse a third party network, then you pay that third party network for the privilege. It's very straight-forward. There is absolutely no source for confusion in any of this.
Their data is traversing my ISP's network to get to me. Why is my ISP not a "third party network" in this context? Is it just size - i.e. if I ran a big network myself, would the "If your traffic needs to traverse a third party network, then you pay that third party network for the privilege" rule then apply to Google sending data to me via my ISP?
You pay for transit as a provider. Transit is when your traffic passes a third party network. Transit is not when the traffic that the users of a network requested passes through their own network.
Which one does Google sending data to me via my ISP come under? Am I paying my ISP to be a part of their network (the second case) or for transit from my network to the internet as a whole (the first)? Seems a bit of an arbitrary distinction, unless we want to go by technicalities like "having your own IP range / AS number makes you a separate network".
The "users" want to access resources. Google want them to, so they can sell advertising. The benefits of the transaction aren't one-way. Besides, if I used my internet connection exclusively to host a server I would still have to pay for it. The difference is that Google is big and important enough to be able to bargain for good terms.
It's all just throwing packets around, ultimately. Considerations of "who benefited most from this exchange of packets" are outside the concern of an ISP.
The internet is not client server based. IP doesn't make any distinction between client and server, and doesn't have a concept of a connection. That's all handled by higher level protocols, which ISPs shouldn't be concerning themselves with.
That doesn't match all with the reports from Fukushima. There were some early thoughts that the fuel pool was leaking, but that proved to be false. The large quantities of short half life radioiodine released show that the leak was from the reactors, not the spent fuel pools.
The issue is that a containment vessel can only tolerate a certain internal pressure. The reactor core produces heat even when shut down, and heating in a sealed space leads to a pressure increase. In the absence of some way of relieving pressure (such as a functioning cooling system) this will inevitably lead to failure of the containment vessel.
Some new designs can provide this cooling passively using water tanks above the containment, but the vast majority of reactors require active systems to do this.
This thorium stuff is just another paper reactor. They're always the safest. It's when they try to implement them that problems show up.
Yet they're still crap. Even the modern ones can be made to spew black smoke, and most of them do so regularly. Filters help, but not enough, and they need high temperatures to clean themselves -- temperatures which the average non-motorway driver never reach.
Yes, the NOx and particulate matter are still several times worse for diesel than for petrol, despite stricter regulations. Before Euro 5, the diesel requirements were *much* slacker.
Though apparently the fancy new direct injection petrol engines produce significant amounts of particulate matter, though still less than diesels. A little less greenhouse gas but much more pollution doesn't really seem like a good trade to me.
I don't know where you live but that isn't allowed in western Europe. We require our coal plants to be reasonably clean and any new ones will have carbon capture built in.
Hardly - the scrubbers may filter out *most* of the pollutants, but not all by a long way. As for carbon capture - that's still limited to a tiny number of small scale test projects at the moment. None of the planned coal plants in Germany will have it, for example.
You could have used "it" to refer to AMD (if it's a singular entity rather than a group of people, then by the same logic it's inanimate). Grammar is a matter of convention, and the convention is that companies are grammatically plural. You might as well ask why French has feminine tables.
I can think of no technology which has comparable levels of continued failure. It's time to put large scale fusion research to bed until other necessary technologies have caught up, and put the money saved into solar/wind/hydro generation and grid improvements.
And how much difference do you think that would make? Solar/wind and the like already get vastly more public funding than fusion. Adding the fusion budget to it would barely be noticeable.
There's rather a lot of difference between 0.85 THz and 500 THz. A similar factor increase in frequency from visible light would give you X-rays, and I doubt you'd say they were the same as visible light.
As an added bonus being on a separate device means it's not easy for malware to disable.
UPnP means that it is. And without UPnP plenty of legitimate applications won't work without lots of manual configuring which your average person won't know how to do. Besides, if you've got malware then you're already stuffed, firewall or not.
Batteries are already mass produced though, aren't they? Perhaps not on the scale that electric cars would use, but certainly enough to have achieved the cost reductions associated with mass production rather than specially built low-volume items.
Slashdot Mirror
Mechanical circuit switching is long dead, and electronic circuit switching is no more limited in capacity than packet switching. The reason long distance was more expensive was that in the old days it really was very expensive to install a lot of long distance capacity, and this was true for data as well as voice. Fibre changed all that, so if they're still charging a fortune it's solely because they can. Some phone companies here in the UK offer unlimited international calls (to come countries) in their bundles, but there's now a (regulator enforced) competitive market. The old monopoly telco, BT, would never have done anything like that.
100Mbps is plenty for a home user. Yes, yes, 640k will be enough for anyone, etc. But really, what will need more than that? That's enough for many simultaneous high definition video streams. VDSL2 allows easily good enough performance at a far lower cost than putting new cabling in.
The coax infrastructure is also far less widely available than the twisted pair. In my country, only about 50% of the population have access to it, compared to nearly everyone for the phone lines. If you're going to deploy entirely new cabling, you might as well make it fibre and avoid the need for powered equipment in the field - the coax, like the twisted pair, is only worthwhile because it's already there.
Breeder reactors are a bitch to work. As far as I know, there is no successful commercial program on the horizon.
The Russians have had some luck - the BN-600 reactor has a load factor comparable to their conventional reactors. How *safe* it is I'm not sure, but the reliability's not bad for such an old design.
I didn't ask about the price of solar. Solar power could be .00001 cents per kWH for all I care.
If it really was that cheap you could store the energy as heat in a molten salt. Resistance heat to melt the salt, then a steam turbine to convert the heat back into electricity. You'd only get about 40% round-trip efficiency, but that wouldn't matter if the starting energy only cost a cent per kWh.
Sadly, it's rather more expensive than that.
Take Scotland as an example. Using wind they meet your base load requirement. Yes, locally wind speed varies, but over the entire country there is always enough energy being produced to supply a certain amount of base load.
No there isn't (unless "a certain amount" is about 5% of installed wind capacity). This shows UK generation status. Wind has actually been quite stable over the past couple of days, but I've often seen it down near zero.
Furthermore wind speed is very predictable over the short term, and you can always keep some idling gas plants around to fill in those rare occasions when you need more energy.
Indeed you can, but what if you want, say, 50% of the electricity to be provided by wind on average? Baseload is about 50-60% of average (for the UK, which is what I'm familiar with). At a load factor of 30% that implies that at anything higher than 20% of electricity from wind (on average) means that sometimes there'll be more wind power generated than the grid can make use of. Generating electricity when nobody wants it isn't economic.
The other Item more power helps us with Is running Migrations at higher frequencies. right now we record at 250Hz(125 nyquest) but only process at 60Hz, This is mainly due to the price of computer time. doubling to 120Hz requires 4 times more computer time.
Worse than that, doubling the frequency requires 16 times the computer time, as you need to halve your spatial sampling interval to prevent aliasing. Assuming we're talking about wave equation based techniques such as RTM.
This is one of those areas which is still very much "no matter how powerful the computer, we'll use it all".
Maybe you can't, I don't know. If not it's a limitation of Windows or the SMB server in question.
The Windows firewall is a way of letting the user decide what is and isn't authorised rather than the application, which is a useful function. The problem with separate firewall boxes is that's not really possible for the average user to do that - configuring them is rather unintuitive to say the least. And having UPnP defeats the point of the firewall, as it means the application makes the decision - but it's quite capable of doing that on its own without a separate firewall box. Having such firewalls as standard will encourage application writers to rely on it, i.e. to assume the network is secure by default. I'd consider it bad practice for applications or operating systems to rely on external security measures, particularly in the modern era of mobile devices and untrusted networks.
What's wrong with that? Looks correct to me. Unless you're referring to the indicative "are" rather than subjunctive "be" - but that's an American requirement. The subjunctive is pretty much dead in British English.
So have the SMB server only accept connections from the local network. Same result.
As an added bonus, you won't accidentally leave your machine unprotected if you connect it to different network - a common thing to do with mobile devices and wireless.
That seems a bit pointless. Why have a firewall if you're going to let anything open it up? Just as effective would be to have no firewall and simply don't open ports on the end machines if you don't want to accept connections.
France still has a notion & law that no-one should work more than 35 hours per week. Evidently, you can't get anything done as such - even the french agree, and most work more than this limit.
I can get plenty done in my 37.5 hour (excluding lunches) week. In fact, I'm noticeably less efficient and reliable towards the end of the day, so 35 hours sounds pretty much ideal.
What's the point in an efficient industrial economy if you still have to work just as much?
There's nothing arbitrary about it. If your traffic needs to traverse a third party network, then you pay that third party network for the privilege. It's very straight-forward. There is absolutely no source for confusion in any of this.
Their data is traversing my ISP's network to get to me. Why is my ISP not a "third party network" in this context? Is it just size - i.e. if I ran a big network myself, would the "If your traffic needs to traverse a third party network, then you pay that third party network for the privilege" rule then apply to Google sending data to me via my ISP?
You pay for transit as a provider. Transit is when your traffic passes a third party network. Transit is not when the traffic that the users of a network requested passes through their own network.
Which one does Google sending data to me via my ISP come under? Am I paying my ISP to be a part of their network (the second case) or for transit from my network to the internet as a whole (the first)? Seems a bit of an arbitrary distinction, unless we want to go by technicalities like "having your own IP range / AS number makes you a separate network".
The "users" want to access resources. Google want them to, so they can sell advertising. The benefits of the transaction aren't one-way. Besides, if I used my internet connection exclusively to host a server I would still have to pay for it. The difference is that Google is big and important enough to be able to bargain for good terms.
It's all just throwing packets around, ultimately. Considerations of "who benefited most from this exchange of packets" are outside the concern of an ISP.
The internet is not client server based. IP doesn't make any distinction between client and server, and doesn't have a concept of a connection. That's all handled by higher level protocols, which ISPs shouldn't be concerning themselves with.
So yes, it *is* Google sending the data.
That doesn't match all with the reports from Fukushima. There were some early thoughts that the fuel pool was leaking, but that proved to be false. The large quantities of short half life radioiodine released show that the leak was from the reactors, not the spent fuel pools.
The issue is that a containment vessel can only tolerate a certain internal pressure. The reactor core produces heat even when shut down, and heating in a sealed space leads to a pressure increase. In the absence of some way of relieving pressure (such as a functioning cooling system) this will inevitably lead to failure of the containment vessel.
Some new designs can provide this cooling passively using water tanks above the containment, but the vast majority of reactors require active systems to do this.
This thorium stuff is just another paper reactor. They're always the safest. It's when they try to implement them that problems show up.
Yet they're still crap. Even the modern ones can be made to spew black smoke, and most of them do so regularly. Filters help, but not enough, and they need high temperatures to clean themselves -- temperatures which the average non-motorway driver never reach.
Yes, the NOx and particulate matter are still several times worse for diesel than for petrol, despite stricter regulations. Before Euro 5, the diesel requirements were *much* slacker.
Though apparently the fancy new direct injection petrol engines produce significant amounts of particulate matter, though still less than diesels. A little less greenhouse gas but much more pollution doesn't really seem like a good trade to me.
I don't know where you live but that isn't allowed in western Europe. We require our coal plants to be reasonably clean and any new ones will have carbon capture built in.
Hardly - the scrubbers may filter out *most* of the pollutants, but not all by a long way. As for carbon capture - that's still limited to a tiny number of small scale test projects at the moment. None of the planned coal plants in Germany will have it, for example.
You could have used "it" to refer to AMD (if it's a singular entity rather than a group of people, then by the same logic it's inanimate). Grammar is a matter of convention, and the convention is that companies are grammatically plural. You might as well ask why French has feminine tables.
I can think of no technology which has comparable levels of continued failure. It's time to put large scale fusion research to bed until other necessary technologies have caught up, and put the money saved into solar/wind/hydro generation and grid improvements.
And how much difference do you think that would make? Solar/wind and the like already get vastly more public funding than fusion. Adding the fusion budget to it would barely be noticeable.
There's rather a lot of difference between 0.85 THz and 500 THz. A similar factor increase in frequency from visible light would give you X-rays, and I doubt you'd say they were the same as visible light.
Visible light is several hundred THz.
As an added bonus being on a separate device means it's not easy for malware to disable.
UPnP means that it is. And without UPnP plenty of legitimate applications won't work without lots of manual configuring which your average person won't know how to do. Besides, if you've got malware then you're already stuffed, firewall or not.
I doubt anyone's fibre is. Maybe Virgin's coax & twisted pair are though.
Batteries are already mass produced though, aren't they? Perhaps not on the scale that electric cars would use, but certainly enough to have achieved the cost reductions associated with mass production rather than specially built low-volume items.