You don't need to synchronize the phases if the system is designed right. Keep each generator separate (do not even try to parallel them). Have every machine covered by UPS/battery so they ride through the switching. In high redundancy cases, use an extra transfer switch for a pair of generators for each section. Only do open-transition power transfers (the lights blink out briefly during the change but the UPS/battery system keeps things running). For machines with multiple power input, split them across multiple UPSes for extra redundancy.
So basically, there will be no incentive to prevent damages. And since the people who are damaged won't know who did it, it won't really ever come back to them. It sure sounds to me like the whole ICO is just a crock. My bet is they are all bribed.
I just tested Comcast's DNS lookup. They are redirecting SLDs that get NXDOMAIN from the TLD server. However, for hostnames within registered and working SLDs, they are redirecting SOME of those, as well. In particular my test for a couple of my own domains shows that for.net they are not doing 3rd level name redirection, but for.us they are. IMHO, the 3rd level redirection is bad.
That can easily be hijacked by the ISP. They simply set up a DNS server host, add these IP addresses to an interface, and add routes to direct the traffic to that server. Done.
Now imagine half the population plugging cars into the gird every night that draw WAY more power than any consumer HVAC unit.
Huh? My A/C system uses a 40 amp 240 volt dedicated circuit. They are showing these cars as having a 15 amp 120 volt plug. How much do these cars really need during recharge?
You seem to be thinking along the lines I am at about the same time (my post just a couple posts down at the top level). So I guess this idea for reforming the patent system is not innovative:-)
Whenever there is a problem where at least a couple good programmers (or teams), working independently arrive reasonably quickly (within a month or so) at the same solution, then it is definitely not something that we need a patent system to encourage (because it is obvious enough that this invention would happen anyway). Since the patent system is itself a theft of other people's intellectual property (two people invent the same thing, fully independent of each other, but one happens to do so a few days later, that one loses their own property they created under the patent system concept if the other patented it first), its scope needs to be made to be very narrow and only applied to those kinds of things that are genuinely believed by real technologists (not government bureaucracy clerks) as something that is truly innovative and non-obvious.
One other case would apply, and that being where the invention requires a substantial amount of financial resources to apply the research needed to make this (e.g. arbitrary inventors would generally be unable to do this). But these cases are very few in number.
The difference is that Nortel would likely not be seeing the Android as competition that needs to be stopped, and would negotiate a license on a reasonable and fair basis. At least some of the others are highly suspect at wanting to do so, either because the end product represents competition, or represents a furtherance of certain technology ideas they dislike (e.g. that source is open).
I might be more believing of Google's current position if they were to also be campaigning for a major overhaul of the patent system.
Such a major overhaul needs to first recognize that any issuance of a patent "takes away the rights of others to independently invent and innovate" where "this taking is justified only where it creates an incentive to innovate where none would otherwise exist". It also needs to establish new, stronger, standards to evaluate whether an application represents genuine innovation that is not likely to have happened without the patent incentive (e.g. "if I can't get a patent, I just won't invent this" are cases that need incentive where things that would be invented no matter what are not). If an engineer, developer, or researcher in a given field (or in particular, a few of them) could have come up with the particular invention in a reasonable way, when posed with the particular problem it solves, then that represents something that is "obvious" and "non-innovative". The patent system should be (and originally was) for the purpose of encouraging innovative and non-obvious inventions in order to benefit the nation and world as a whole. It was never intended as a means for businesses to back-stab each other, to put roadblocks in front of each other, and to further gouge the markets.
FYI, this is not a "software patents" issue. While the vast majority of "software patents" really are obvious and/or non-innovative (at the level of standard that patents should be issued for), there are some cases where this is not so. It should not matter if a non-obvious and genuinely innovative idea is implemented in hardware or software (or a combination thereof). This kind of major patent system overhaul should also fix the "software patents problem" at the same time as fixing other problems.
The MIT license, which the Anonymous reader also mentioned with the words "GPL and MIT" which suggests that it was dual licensed, places only one restriction on anyone using that code: they must use the MIT license. Other restrictions, like only distributing it with all source including modifications, do not apply with the MIT license. MIT is not a "viral" license. It is just a "persistent" license.
Any of his code that is under the MIT license, or allows choosing the MIT license, could easily allow the company, or anyone else, to do this, with the exception of removing the MIT license. They would not be required to do things like provide source code to the original or any changes they made (which the GPL would).
If any of their tracking actually works in the case of user cookies being denied or not kept, then yes. If they choose to still do tracking for such users, they also need to honor do-not-track for those users.
Or it can be an OS that is made to look like it was booted when the real one was, and erase the code that sets that up (the real OS restores it). It could just be a copy of the system parts of the real OS but not the data.
Or maybe only the/home and/var parts are encrypted (or whatever equivalents exist on some-other-OS).
Be sure to keep some normal adult pr0n in the bogus area.
Some encryption systems are designed so that an SHA512 hash of the passphrase is only used to decrypt a larger 4096 bit key of random bits stored on an obscure sector of the drive. That key (once itself decrypted) is then used to decrypt the various random keys over various drive segments to decrypt the actual data. It can also check to see if the decryption fails. If the decryption fails for N times, where N defaults to 3, but can be configured by the owner to even be one, it will erase the encrypted 4096 bit key stored on that obscure sector by writing over it with random bits. All the data will then be instantly gone.
Interference can work both ways, too. With insufficient shielding, transmissions from your wireless router, cell phone, cordless phone, or the ham across the street, could turns some 1's into 0's and some 0's into 1's at the higher speeds (the higher the speed, the weaker the 0's and 1's are). That will mess with your pr0n.
Shielding may or may not be useful in a given situation. But with digital, when it just doesn't come across, you really have no idea why. At least with analog, the various different failure modes had a different kind of appearance and I learned to tell them apart and know what the cause was. With digital, you might get slowdowns due to lost packets (we see this often on wifi), or complete loss due to negotiation failure. Or it might simply fail at higher speeds and work only at lower speeds even though both devices can do higher speed.
My advice for slashdotters (who really don't need this advice) is to start at the low end, and if it has issues, get a better one and try that. If you start at the high end, it will likely work fine, but you won't know if you needed it or not. My advice for lawyers and big corporate CEOs is to buy the most expensive HDMI cable you can find so you won't be wasting your time pretending to be a geek. If it costs less than $500 you aren't looking hard enough.
Slashdot Mirror
So, which name is fake? The one on my birth certificate? Or the one everyone knows me by?
Just use a high end toy remote control helicopter.
You don't need to synchronize the phases if the system is designed right. Keep each generator separate (do not even try to parallel them). Have every machine covered by UPS/battery so they ride through the switching. In high redundancy cases, use an extra transfer switch for a pair of generators for each section. Only do open-transition power transfers (the lights blink out briefly during the change but the UPS/battery system keeps things running). For machines with multiple power input, split them across multiple UPSes for extra redundancy.
So basically, there will be no incentive to prevent damages. And since the people who are damaged won't know who did it, it won't really ever come back to them. It sure sounds to me like the whole ICO is just a crock. My bet is they are all bribed.
I just tested Comcast's DNS lookup. They are redirecting SLDs that get NXDOMAIN from the TLD server. However, for hostnames within registered and working SLDs, they are redirecting SOME of those, as well. In particular my test for a couple of my own domains shows that for .net they are not doing 3rd level name redirection, but for .us they are. IMHO, the 3rd level redirection is bad.
And of course Comcast would never hijack the 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 name servers by rerouting those IPs to its own name server.
That can easily be hijacked by the ISP. They simply set up a DNS server host, add these IP addresses to an interface, and add routes to direct the traffic to that server. Done.
Now imagine half the population plugging cars into the gird every night that draw WAY more power than any consumer HVAC unit.
Huh? My A/C system uses a 40 amp 240 volt dedicated circuit. They are showing these cars as having a 15 amp 120 volt plug. How much do these cars really need during recharge?
You seem to be thinking along the lines I am at about the same time (my post just a couple posts down at the top level). So I guess this idea for reforming the patent system is not innovative :-)
Whenever there is a problem where at least a couple good programmers (or teams), working independently arrive reasonably quickly (within a month or so) at the same solution, then it is definitely not something that we need a patent system to encourage (because it is obvious enough that this invention would happen anyway). Since the patent system is itself a theft of other people's intellectual property (two people invent the same thing, fully independent of each other, but one happens to do so a few days later, that one loses their own property they created under the patent system concept if the other patented it first), its scope needs to be made to be very narrow and only applied to those kinds of things that are genuinely believed by real technologists (not government bureaucracy clerks) as something that is truly innovative and non-obvious.
One other case would apply, and that being where the invention requires a substantial amount of financial resources to apply the research needed to make this (e.g. arbitrary inventors would generally be unable to do this). But these cases are very few in number.
The difference is that Nortel would likely not be seeing the Android as competition that needs to be stopped, and would negotiate a license on a reasonable and fair basis. At least some of the others are highly suspect at wanting to do so, either because the end product represents competition, or represents a furtherance of certain technology ideas they dislike (e.g. that source is open).
I might be more believing of Google's current position if they were to also be campaigning for a major overhaul of the patent system.
Such a major overhaul needs to first recognize that any issuance of a patent "takes away the rights of others to independently invent and innovate" where "this taking is justified only where it creates an incentive to innovate where none would otherwise exist". It also needs to establish new, stronger, standards to evaluate whether an application represents genuine innovation that is not likely to have happened without the patent incentive (e.g. "if I can't get a patent, I just won't invent this" are cases that need incentive where things that would be invented no matter what are not). If an engineer, developer, or researcher in a given field (or in particular, a few of them) could have come up with the particular invention in a reasonable way, when posed with the particular problem it solves, then that represents something that is "obvious" and "non-innovative". The patent system should be (and originally was) for the purpose of encouraging innovative and non-obvious inventions in order to benefit the nation and world as a whole. It was never intended as a means for businesses to back-stab each other, to put roadblocks in front of each other, and to further gouge the markets.
FYI, this is not a "software patents" issue. While the vast majority of "software patents" really are obvious and/or non-innovative (at the level of standard that patents should be issued for), there are some cases where this is not so. It should not matter if a non-obvious and genuinely innovative idea is implemented in hardware or software (or a combination thereof). This kind of major patent system overhaul should also fix the "software patents problem" at the same time as fixing other problems.
ARM for even lower wattage.
It's comments like this that make me wish I had mod points today. So a virtual +1 \o/
The MIT license, which the Anonymous reader also mentioned with the words "GPL and MIT" which suggests that it was dual licensed, places only one restriction on anyone using that code: they must use the MIT license. Other restrictions, like only distributing it with all source including modifications, do not apply with the MIT license. MIT is not a "viral" license. It is just a "persistent" license.
Any of his code that is under the MIT license, or allows choosing the MIT license, could easily allow the company, or anyone else, to do this, with the exception of removing the MIT license. They would not be required to do things like provide source code to the original or any changes they made (which the GPL would).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
If everyone on Google+ has to use their "real name", then how the hell am I gonna find all my real friends?
If any of their tracking actually works in the case of user cookies being denied or not kept, then yes. If they choose to still do tracking for such users, they also need to honor do-not-track for those users.
Wow, so Adobe programming skillz are moving forward, I see. Maybe in another decade they'll learn something about security.
Or it can be an OS that is made to look like it was booted when the real one was, and erase the code that sets that up (the real OS restores it). It could just be a copy of the system parts of the real OS but not the data.
Or maybe only the /home and /var parts are encrypted (or whatever equivalents exist on some-other-OS).
Be sure to keep some normal adult pr0n in the bogus area.
That's what the 5th Amendment is about ... you don't have to do their work for them.
Some encryption systems are designed so that an SHA512 hash of the passphrase is only used to decrypt a larger 4096 bit key of random bits stored on an obscure sector of the drive. That key (once itself decrypted) is then used to decrypt the various random keys over various drive segments to decrypt the actual data. It can also check to see if the decryption fails. If the decryption fails for N times, where N defaults to 3, but can be configured by the owner to even be one, it will erase the encrypted 4096 bit key stored on that obscure sector by writing over it with random bits. All the data will then be instantly gone.
The greens are backing coal, now?
Isn't a "private cloud" just another word for "stored offsite".
.gov.uk got buzzworded into distributing more tax dollars for something they already had.
Sounds like some foolish
It's another word for "stored somewhere you cannot audit".
Interference can work both ways, too. With insufficient shielding, transmissions from your wireless router, cell phone, cordless phone, or the ham across the street, could turns some 1's into 0's and some 0's into 1's at the higher speeds (the higher the speed, the weaker the 0's and 1's are). That will mess with your pr0n.
Shielding may or may not be useful in a given situation. But with digital, when it just doesn't come across, you really have no idea why. At least with analog, the various different failure modes had a different kind of appearance and I learned to tell them apart and know what the cause was. With digital, you might get slowdowns due to lost packets (we see this often on wifi), or complete loss due to negotiation failure. Or it might simply fail at higher speeds and work only at lower speeds even though both devices can do higher speed.
My advice for slashdotters (who really don't need this advice) is to start at the low end, and if it has issues, get a better one and try that. If you start at the high end, it will likely work fine, but you won't know if you needed it or not. My advice for lawyers and big corporate CEOs is to buy the most expensive HDMI cable you can find so you won't be wasting your time pretending to be a geek. If it costs less than $500 you aren't looking hard enough.
Yes. And you need one with the same connector on both ends so you can hook it up backwards if you want to go in reverse ;-)