The security issues with radio also apply to RFC1149 media. Hence the encryption.
A WW II field radio can reach 75 to 800 miles, depending on conditions. A pigeon can fly 500 miles in a day, but weigh that against vulnerability to snipers, wires, and raptors.
Unbelievable. They were still using carrier pigeons in WW II? Despite the invention of radio?
My first thought was that this they got the war wrong or that it was some hobbyist playing at secret messages. But no, they did use pigeons in WW II. The Army Pigeon Service was only disbanded in 1957!
It's weird how military people refuse to give up their favorite toys. As early as the Civil War, the smarter generals were pointing out the stupidity of charging cavalry against modern rifled weapons. And yet the last cavelry charge occurred 80 years later!
Actually, it's "Don't Be Evil", and it was never a marketing term. It was invented by some software guy in the early days, who claimed it was the only ethical or conduct rule that employees should have to remember.
That's pretty stupid, and (as you say) Google has had its share of ethical lapses. But this particular hassle over smartphone patents started out as one of Steve Jobs's famous hissy fits. Absent his vow to destroy Android, regardless of how much it cost Apple, this little patent war would have ended quietly long ago.
Perhaps I've missed some unneighborliness on Google's part, but from what I've seen they've just been defending themselves against a childish vendetta. Now that Apple is motivated by honest commercialism instead of Jobsian tantrums, we'll see fewer monetary conflagrations.
Maybe my facts are poorly sourced.` I'll concede that you're closer to the problem than I am and have done more research. (Though your source for carbon footprint data lacks a certain objectivity.) My koolaid comes from various scientists I''ve read and heard in podcasts who feel that all the DIY alternative energy sources are just not the right way to attack the greenhouse gas problem.
My main mistake is using old data for the economic argument. I used to live in California, where there's a big incentive for homeowners to install solar installations in the form of a requirement that utilities buy the surplus power. I read many stories about people spending 6 figures on installations, only to run into trouble with neighbors who didn't want to trim their trees or utilities that claimed that hooking up little power sources all over the place made it very hard for them to manage their grids.
But yeah, the collapse in solar panel costs have destroyed my economic argument. Still, no solar powered airplanes.
"Ad hominem" is not a fancy way of saying "rude". It refers to the fallacy of asserting that the argument is bad because the arguer is an asshole. Since assholish behavior is the topic of discussion, pointing it out is not an ad hominem argument.
So, kewl. If I lived in Europe, I'd probably belong to the Social Democrats, or even the Greens, and I might well hope that this kind of anarchic commuitarianism would work out, because that sort of thing has a long cultural tradition over there. But I live in the everyone-grabs-what-they can U.S., I don't belong to a political party because none in this country deserve my respect, and I don't trust people not to abuse an open connection.
Blacklisting? Yeah, that sure worked for spammers. It's good that you have courteous neighbors — and that the one exception doesn't know how to spoof a MAC address. Such situations are not universal.
Actually, my POV is neither the brainless anti-nuke attitude you're assuming nor the brainless pro-nuke attitude you've been vocalizing. I agree that nuclear power can be made reasonably safe, but I do get tired of hearing from assholes like you who respond to every examination of nuclear safety issues with insults and ad-hominem crap.
I don't see anything in TFA about mesh networking. It seems to be all about sharing traditional ISP connections.
I certainly see the advantage of mesh networks in an emergency. But how many people are willing to depend on them for day-to-day networking? Not me — I don't see how such a network can hope to have the kind of bandwidth I use. Besides which, you have the chicken-and-egg problem of getting enough people to switch before you have the criticial mass of users needed to create a useful mesh.
The EFF does a lot of good work but this "bandwidth wants to be free" nonsense is not something they should be involved in. I'd be fine with sharing my connection with the casual passer by, but I don't want some idiot to come by and saturate my connection when I'm trying to watch TV. (I never watch TV on TV anymore; easier to just wait for the online stream to come up.) They need to stick with defending people's rights and not waste efforts on silly schemes.
Well, your setup is a lot cheaper than others I've seen. I suppose that's a sign that solar cell costs are coming down.
But still, I'm not seeing good economics here. First off, does it ever rain where you live? If it does, you're not going to get the same figures every months.
But let's assume you do. Without that taxpayer subsidy it would take you 10 years to to make back that investment. Now, I'm your classic big-government liberal — I like people getting subsidized to do good stuff. But it has to be really good. I'm not seeing that here: I think there'd be more bang for the buck in subsidizing a commercial solar installation.
And I'm skeptical that you can keep your array working for 20 years without spending any more money. It's easy enough for a vendor to offer a 20-year warantee. Getting a warantee enforced is not so easy. And hey, does that warantee cover just the cells or will they come in and fix all the other stuff that goes wrong with a complicatedf electrical system?
You don't object to what I say about carbon footprint, but it bears repeating: small-scale projects like yours mostly have a negative impact.
If you want to support solar power, buy some Brightsource stock and tell your congressperson to support the industry and stop taking money from the coal lobby..
The fact that this question is even being asked shows how poorly people understand the practicalities of solar power. Cover something with PV cells and you've got power. Problem solved, right?
There are two problems here. First, small-scale solar power generation is just not very efficient. If you spend a lot of money and cover your roof with PV cells, not only will you not make back your cost, you probably won't even prevent enough greenhouse gas emissions to offset those emited by manufacturing and installation
Second is storage. There's just no way to store electrical energy that comes even close to the energy storage provided by hydrocarbons. And you have to have storage, because you can't count on the sun being out when you need juice.
These problems can be solved but without some fundamental breakthroughs they can't be solved on a small scale. So the future of solar power is huge generation and storage facilities, not vehicles covered with solar cells,
I'm not claiming that these east coast plants are a disaster waiting to happen. I'm simply pointing out how silly it is to claim that being well built makes them immune from disaster.
As we speak, there's an east coast plant that's lost its normal cooling due to flooding. It looks like they're dealing with it, but that should make it clear that big thick walls are not magic.
My big gripe with nukes is not the technology itself but the cadre of true believers who get all righteous whenever anybody suggests that the tech isn't perfect. As in this thread and many other for this story..
OK point taken. But even those big guys are midgets when compared to Intel. And if AMD can carve out a tiny niche in an Intel-dominated market....
I don't get what you're saying about ARM versus other RISC chips. ARM is already the last man standing in the low-power space (how many phones use MIPS?) just as x86 is the last man standing in desktop and data center markets.
It's overkill if you have precisely one hardware server per function. That's becomming increasingly rare.Nowadays, a "server" is most often a VM that doesn't need exclusive access to the physical CPU.
Your facts are off two ways. First, going up against one big monopolistic company is a lot harder than going up against a lot of small ones. (Do you think it's easier to fight an elephant or a bunch of guys who are also fighting each other,) Second, they've managed to survive in the x86 market for 30 years. I think that counts as competing.
OK, I didn't get the context, because you didn't make clear which of my remarks you were responding too.
Maybe Fast Breeders would indeed solve all oiur engergy problems. I honestly don't know. But I don't see anybody getting all religious about them. Instead,they get all bent out of shape whenever somebody suggests that current light water reactors might not be 100% shape. I think you'll agree that the current generation of nuclear power plants do not represent a technology that's worth getting all righteous about.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely it was AWOL and got mugged.
The security issues with radio also apply to RFC1149 media. Hence the encryption.
A WW II field radio can reach 75 to 800 miles, depending on conditions. A pigeon can fly 500 miles in a day, but weigh that against vulnerability to snipers, wires, and raptors.
Unbelievable. They were still using carrier pigeons in WW II? Despite the invention of radio?
My first thought was that this they got the war wrong or that it was some hobbyist playing at secret messages. But no, they did use pigeons in WW II. The Army Pigeon Service was only disbanded in 1957!
It's weird how military people refuse to give up their favorite toys. As early as the Civil War, the smarter generals were pointing out the stupidity of charging cavalry against modern rifled weapons. And yet the last cavelry charge occurred 80 years later!
What I said.[0]
Actually, it's "Don't Be Evil", and it was never a marketing term. It was invented by some software guy in the early days, who claimed it was the only ethical or conduct rule that employees should have to remember.
That's pretty stupid, and (as you say) Google has had its share of ethical lapses. But this particular hassle over smartphone patents started out as one of Steve Jobs's famous hissy fits. Absent his vow to destroy Android, regardless of how much it cost Apple, this little patent war would have ended quietly long ago.
Perhaps I've missed some unneighborliness on Google's part, but from what I've seen they've just been defending themselves against a childish vendetta. Now that Apple is motivated by honest commercialism instead of Jobsian tantrums, we'll see fewer monetary conflagrations.
No! Google STOLE the smartphone concept! They must be destroyed!
Oh wait, St. Steve is dead. Never mind.
Maybe my facts are poorly sourced.` I'll concede that you're closer to the problem than I am and have done more research. (Though your source for carbon footprint data lacks a certain objectivity.) My koolaid comes from various scientists I''ve read and heard in podcasts who feel that all the DIY alternative energy sources are just not the right way to attack the greenhouse gas problem.
My main mistake is using old data for the economic argument. I used to live in California, where there's a big incentive for homeowners to install solar installations in the form of a requirement that utilities buy the surplus power. I read many stories about people spending 6 figures on installations, only to run into trouble with neighbors who didn't want to trim their trees or utilities that claimed that hooking up little power sources all over the place made it very hard for them to manage their grids.
But yeah, the collapse in solar panel costs have destroyed my economic argument. Still, no solar powered airplanes.
I'm positive about things that deserve it.
"Ad hominem" is not a fancy way of saying "rude". It refers to the fallacy of asserting that the argument is bad because the arguer is an asshole. Since assholish behavior is the topic of discussion, pointing it out is not an ad hominem argument.
When you die, you don't get uploaded, 'cause the stupid humans have taken out the ressurection ship.
So, kewl. If I lived in Europe, I'd probably belong to the Social Democrats, or even the Greens, and I might well hope that this kind of anarchic commuitarianism would work out, because that sort of thing has a long cultural tradition over there. But I live in the everyone-grabs-what-they can U.S., I don't belong to a political party because none in this country deserve my respect, and I don't trust people not to abuse an open connection.
Blacklisting? Yeah, that sure worked for spammers. It's good that you have courteous neighbors — and that the one exception doesn't know how to spoof a MAC address. Such situations are not universal.
Actually, my POV is neither the brainless anti-nuke attitude you're assuming nor the brainless pro-nuke attitude you've been vocalizing. I agree that nuclear power can be made reasonably safe, but I do get tired of hearing from assholes like you who respond to every examination of nuclear safety issues with insults and ad-hominem crap.
I don't see anything in TFA about mesh networking. It seems to be all about sharing traditional ISP connections.
I certainly see the advantage of mesh networks in an emergency. But how many people are willing to depend on them for day-to-day networking? Not me — I don't see how such a network can hope to have the kind of bandwidth I use. Besides which, you have the chicken-and-egg problem of getting enough people to switch before you have the criticial mass of users needed to create a useful mesh.
The EFF does a lot of good work but this "bandwidth wants to be free" nonsense is not something they should be involved in. I'd be fine with sharing my connection with the casual passer by, but I don't want some idiot to come by and saturate my connection when I'm trying to watch TV. (I never watch TV on TV anymore; easier to just wait for the online stream to come up.) They need to stick with defending people's rights and not waste efforts on silly schemes.
Well, your setup is a lot cheaper than others I've seen. I suppose that's a sign that solar cell costs are coming down.
But still, I'm not seeing good economics here. First off, does it ever rain where you live? If it does, you're not going to get the same figures every months.
But let's assume you do. Without that taxpayer subsidy it would take you 10 years to to make back that investment. Now, I'm your classic big-government liberal — I like people getting subsidized to do good stuff. But it has to be really good. I'm not seeing that here: I think there'd be more bang for the buck in subsidizing a commercial solar installation.
And I'm skeptical that you can keep your array working for 20 years without spending any more money. It's easy enough for a vendor to offer a 20-year warantee. Getting a warantee enforced is not so easy. And hey, does that warantee cover just the cells or will they come in and fix all the other stuff that goes wrong with a complicatedf electrical system?
You don't object to what I say about carbon footprint, but it bears repeating: small-scale projects like yours mostly have a negative impact.
If you want to support solar power, buy some Brightsource stock and tell your congressperson to support the industry and stop taking money from the coal lobby..
Uh batteries? Did you miss the part where I said that current battery tech isn't up to snuff?
And beamed power? Do you seriously want to shoot high-level energy beams all over the sky? Not without a alien attack, you don't.
The fact that this question is even being asked shows how poorly people understand the practicalities of solar power. Cover something with PV cells and you've got power. Problem solved, right?
There are two problems here. First, small-scale solar power generation is just not very efficient. If you spend a lot of money and cover your roof with PV cells, not only will you not make back your cost, you probably won't even prevent enough greenhouse gas emissions to offset those emited by manufacturing and installation
Second is storage. There's just no way to store electrical energy that comes even close to the energy storage provided by hydrocarbons. And you have to have storage, because you can't count on the sun being out when you need juice.
These problems can be solved but without some fundamental breakthroughs they can't be solved on a small scale. So the future of solar power is huge generation and storage facilities, not vehicles covered with solar cells,
I'm not claiming that these east coast plants are a disaster waiting to happen. I'm simply pointing out how silly it is to claim that being well built makes them immune from disaster.
As we speak, there's an east coast plant that's lost its normal cooling due to flooding. It looks like they're dealing with it, but that should make it clear that big thick walls are not magic.
My big gripe with nukes is not the technology itself but the cadre of true believers who get all righteous whenever anybody suggests that the tech isn't perfect. As in this thread and many other for this story..
OK point taken. But even those big guys are midgets when compared to Intel. And if AMD can carve out a tiny niche in an Intel-dominated market....
I don't get what you're saying about ARM versus other RISC chips. ARM is already the last man standing in the low-power space (how many phones use MIPS?) just as x86 is the last man standing in desktop and data center markets.
Actually, you did.
It's overkill if you have precisely one hardware server per function. That's becomming increasingly rare.Nowadays, a "server" is most often a VM that doesn't need exclusive access to the physical CPU.
Your facts are off two ways. First, going up against one big monopolistic company is a lot harder than going up against a lot of small ones. (Do you think it's easier to fight an elephant or a bunch of guys who are also fighting each other,) Second, they've managed to survive in the x86 market for 30 years. I think that counts as competing.
OK, I didn't get the context, because you didn't make clear which of my remarks you were responding too.
Maybe Fast Breeders would indeed solve all oiur engergy problems. I honestly don't know. But I don't see anybody getting all religious about them. Instead,they get all bent out of shape whenever somebody suggests that current light water reactors might not be 100% shape. I think you'll agree that the current generation of nuclear power plants do not represent a technology that's worth getting all righteous about.