Now, I'm not particularly good with metric, nor am I particularly experienced with engine repair (having done nothing more complex than replacing a water pump), but I would think 500C is a bit unusual for an engine to operate at. That's roughly 900F, well above the melting point of, say, lead, and getting close to that of aluminum or magnesium.
According to some brief googling, the typical operating temperature for an engine is under 250F (120C), and gasoline auto-ignites at 280C (540F). So by the time your engine block has reached 500C, you should already have run a good ways away.
Not to mention that, just by the name, tetraflouropropene sounds like a hard chemical to aerosolize, which is also a condition needed for it to release HF.
So to recap: You first need to get your engine block to a temperature far beyond what it's designed to handle. Then you need to be in a crash violent enough to aerosolize a decent-sized organic compound, *and* that aerosol has to land on that engine. Finally, all the above has to happen in sufficient quantities to produce a dangerous amount of HF gas, which I will note is not quite as holyfuckballswereallgonnadie lethal as you seem to think (it is very dangerous, and rightly feared, but you aren't going to die from a milliliter of it).
Yeah, I'm fine with that. Can't be much more dangerous than gasoline, which can kill you under far less unusual circumstances.
They can take some of the salt the more northerly states use against snow.
There have been times where the Department of Transportation or someone salts the road in advance of a storm, and we end up with more salt covering the roads than ice. It's a complete waste - I don't think we got more than one storm last year that needed salt or sand put out, but they salted the roads like twenty times.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my amateur knowledge of Bitcoin, doesn't mining both find coins in new blocks, as well as verifying transactions in exchange for a portion of the fee set aside for such? ie. when a transaction is performed, a small amount (under 1%) is typically marked as compensation for those who verify the transaction, which is needed as otherwise no-one would waste power on verifying transactions.
According to that understanding, the mining process makes sense, as it's providing an incentive for early adopters to adopt. It will gradually taper off to zero, at which point all miners are paid by the transaction fees, which is the ultimate goal of the system.
And honestly, computers verifying Bitcoin transactions has to be a lot more eco-friendly than the number of people needed to watch over credit and debit card transactions.
As others have said, this seems very pie-in-the-sky right now. Have you yet produced *any* EOMA-68 card? As in, actually-shipping?
Sure, if you manage to pull it off, it would be great. None of the ideas, themselves, are that bad. The problem is that you're doing far more at once than I would consider possible. When you were just focusing on the mini ARM PC, it was considered risky enough. Adding all these other ideas seems... unwise. Sure, plan for them, don't do anything as part of the mini-ARM-PC that would break these ideas, but don't waste engineering or PR time on them until you've actually gotten *something* out the door.
Some of your ideas, like the HDMI passthrough, clearly require you to have significant market share to succeed. Monitors are already operating on pretty thin margins - adding the cost of a removable card, while possibly only adding a few dollars to the unit, still costs them quite a bit in the long run. Someone might do that if they're also selling the PC cards, but they're more likely to develop them as separate products (how many people, exactly, will turn a monitor into a full PC?), which eliminates the need for a removable card.
It's funny how, on articles about things everyone here knows about, like BitCoin or the Raspberry Pi, the summary wastes space explaining the context (ie. what BitCoin or RaspPi is), but on an article about something relatively obscure, it just throws model numbers and acronyms at you.
As far as I can discern without reading TFA, this is just some new ARM system-on-a-chip, not particularly revolutionary or powerful, but aimed at use in open-source environments.
No arguing there. MtGox won control of the market by doing their job well, but the very fact that there *is* a single exchange with 80% of the market is a cause for concern.
I was speaking of the Bitcoin human network, not the technical one. Wipe MtGox off this plane of existence and people will still be fully able to transfer Bitcoins to each other, but they'll lose a significant amount of the economic reason to do so.
MtGox is the major point for converting Bitcoins into other currencies, and like it or not, the people keeping their money in Bitcoins are speculators right now. Everyone doing actual purchases is converting money to Bitcoins, exchanging the Bitcoins for goods, and then the seller takes those Bitcoins and converts them back. And MtGox is the primary exchange for converting Bitcoins to and from other currencies.
And the reason people are doing so is because Bitcoin is still very unstable, prone to spikes and crashes, today just being a particularly dramatic one. People don't like to keep money in an unstable currency.
So we need more stability in the Bitcoin market, and until we get that stability a large portion of the Bitcoin market is conversion. And thus, we need stability in the conversion market, which only happens when you have significant redundancy.
MtGox owns too much of the Bitcoin conversion market. They need a solid competitor.
Right now, if you can harm MtGox, you harm the entire Bitcoin network. Slow it down and you slow down Bitcoin trades. Manipulate it and you manipulate the entire market. Regulate it and you regulate most of the market. Destroy it, and Bitcoin may completely die, at least in the short term.
I'm not saying any of this is MtGox's fault - they're doing a good job at what they do. But they're the closest thing Bitcoin has to a single point of failure. We need redundancy.
First, as far as the network goes, treat it the same way you would treat any attack. Block IPs, add filters, whatever you normally do. If they are simulating an attack, you should simulate a defense.
Second, the human response. Make sure that this is actually an authorized security test. Tell them that if you cannot get confirmation that this is an authorized attack, you will have to treat it as an unauthorized one, which means contacting law enforcement, as per standard protocols for dealing with health information. This is "cover your ass" stuff here - if it actually isn't authorized, and you get hacked, you're likely to take the blame for it. And if it is authorized, well, you look like you're doing your job by detecting and responding to the threat.
Microsoft "devices" (which apparently means "Windows devices" - mainly laptops, desktops and servers, with a few smartphones and tablets) are being outsold by Apple devices (mainly smartphones, tablets, and laptops, with a handful of desktops and even fewer servers).
In other news, Ford is outselling Airbus in terms of vehicles sold, and India makes more films than America.
Not only is there the whole computer-vs-mobile thing (with mobile being a growing market and actual computers having plateaued), but Microsoft itself is pretty new as a hardware manufacturer. They make Surface RT, Surface Pro, two generations of Xbox, the Zune, and a long series of mice and keyboards. Whereas Apple has been making hardware since day 1. So a more fair comparison would be "hardware sold" and "software sold" (not counting OS copies bundled with the hardware). Bet you it ends up with each winning one.
PS: Doesn't the Xbox count as a "Microsoft device"? TFA doesn't say, but they don't seem to include it. Seems unfair to have "OS X + iOS" versus "Windows" when Microsoft has their own locked-down, walled-garden media-consuming device.
No, no, people know the word "megapixel". It's the thing that makes the cameras better. Always get the one with the most megapixels. Or is it the biggest megapixels? Just get the biggest number, that's always better. All the megapixels.
And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).
"By visiting this site, you agree not to vote for [list of all people who sponsored the bill] or else pay a $10,000 penalty."
Get them where it hurts - right in their re-election campaign.
Massive throughput is all well and good, very useful for many cases, but does this help with latency?
Near as I can tell, DRAM latency has maybe halved since the Y2K era. Processors keep throwing more cache at the problem, but that only helps to a certain extent. Some chips even go to extreme lengths to avoid too much idle time while waiting on RAM ("HyperThreading", the UltraSPARC T* series). Getting better latency would probably help performance more than bandwidth.
I believe it was implied that this was per annum (270 TW-h/year).
If Wolfram Alpha is correct, that comes out to 31GW, which it notes is about 1/75th the world's power consumption. This seems relatively reasonable, more so than if you interpret it as per-month (16% the world's power) or per-decade (roughly the power of the Hoover Dam).
Well of course. The People's Democratic Republic of Korea, having reached true and perfect communism, has no need for currency or money as all goods are distributed equitably according to need, not according to some barbaric, capitalist tool of oppression like the nickels used by the American pig-demons or their southern puppets to buy weapons with which to destroy the peace-loving and free people of the People's Democratic Republic and their Glorious Leader(s).
No. RPM hasn't changed much. I've seen 15KRPM drives that are as old as I am, and I've seen 5400RPM drives that came out yesterday.
What does change is data density, which does affect sequential read/write speeds (and to a much lesser extent random). So a modern desktop 7200RPM drive can have similar performance to a 10,000RPM server drive from 2004 (date pulled OOMA, use loosely).
Bitcoin mining right now is barely profitable using GPUs, and has been a complete waste on the CPU for over a year.
Just because the machines are on 24/7, you cannot add load to them without increasing their electrical consumption. I have a desktop that idles around 80W, and under full load can reach 400W. And don't forget, every watt a computer uses means one more watt of heat that needs to be removed.
The desktops, unless you have gaming-level GPUs in them, aren't going to turn a profit just on the electrical costs. The HPC might, depending on what sort of hardware is in it. If you're set up to do a lot of GPGPU computing, it would work well. Or if you have FPGAs that you can configure for mining. But if it's just a bunch of CPUs, it's not going to work. Bitcoin mining was explicitly designed to be embarrassingly parallel - the only thing that matters is throwing a lot of wimpy cores at it.
"Michael Jackson was proof of the American Dream, that you can become whoever you want to be. He was born a poor black man, and died a rich white woman."
If, and *only* if, that hacker meets either one of the following requirements: 1) An active member of a military we are at war with, following a proper, public and legal declaration of war 2) Engaged in an activity that has, or inevitably will, result in deaths.
*and* the killing meets all the following requirements: 1) Civilian casualties will not exceed those who would have been (or were) killed by the attack 2) The information on the target is reliable enough to meet whatever standards are in place for killing other types of targets 3) The expense of killing them does not exceed the damage that would have been (or was) inflicted by an attack. 4) There is no reasonable way to bring them back alive for a fair and public trial
This makes me suspect that Apple deliberately started rumors that they were working on a "smartwatch" simply to trick other companies into wasting effort into actually developing such a useless product.
Slashdot Mirror
Coincidence? we at TV-Show-On-Whacky-Therories don't think so.
Oh, you're with the History(tm) Channel?
Now, I'm not particularly good with metric, nor am I particularly experienced with engine repair (having done nothing more complex than replacing a water pump), but I would think 500C is a bit unusual for an engine to operate at. That's roughly 900F, well above the melting point of, say, lead, and getting close to that of aluminum or magnesium.
According to some brief googling, the typical operating temperature for an engine is under 250F (120C), and gasoline auto-ignites at 280C (540F). So by the time your engine block has reached 500C, you should already have run a good ways away.
Not to mention that, just by the name, tetraflouropropene sounds like a hard chemical to aerosolize, which is also a condition needed for it to release HF.
So to recap:
You first need to get your engine block to a temperature far beyond what it's designed to handle. Then you need to be in a crash violent enough to aerosolize a decent-sized organic compound, *and* that aerosol has to land on that engine. Finally, all the above has to happen in sufficient quantities to produce a dangerous amount of HF gas, which I will note is not quite as holyfuckballswereallgonnadie lethal as you seem to think (it is very dangerous, and rightly feared, but you aren't going to die from a milliliter of it).
Yeah, I'm fine with that. Can't be much more dangerous than gasoline, which can kill you under far less unusual circumstances.
No, sometimes the Americans join the fun and blow some stuff up as well.
They can take some of the salt the more northerly states use against snow.
There have been times where the Department of Transportation or someone salts the road in advance of a storm, and we end up with more salt covering the roads than ice. It's a complete waste - I don't think we got more than one storm last year that needed salt or sand put out, but they salted the roads like twenty times.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my amateur knowledge of Bitcoin, doesn't mining both find coins in new blocks, as well as verifying transactions in exchange for a portion of the fee set aside for such? ie. when a transaction is performed, a small amount (under 1%) is typically marked as compensation for those who verify the transaction, which is needed as otherwise no-one would waste power on verifying transactions.
According to that understanding, the mining process makes sense, as it's providing an incentive for early adopters to adopt. It will gradually taper off to zero, at which point all miners are paid by the transaction fees, which is the ultimate goal of the system.
And honestly, computers verifying Bitcoin transactions has to be a lot more eco-friendly than the number of people needed to watch over credit and debit card transactions.
As others have said, this seems very pie-in-the-sky right now. Have you yet produced *any* EOMA-68 card? As in, actually-shipping?
Sure, if you manage to pull it off, it would be great. None of the ideas, themselves, are that bad. The problem is that you're doing far more at once than I would consider possible. When you were just focusing on the mini ARM PC, it was considered risky enough. Adding all these other ideas seems... unwise. Sure, plan for them, don't do anything as part of the mini-ARM-PC that would break these ideas, but don't waste engineering or PR time on them until you've actually gotten *something* out the door.
Some of your ideas, like the HDMI passthrough, clearly require you to have significant market share to succeed. Monitors are already operating on pretty thin margins - adding the cost of a removable card, while possibly only adding a few dollars to the unit, still costs them quite a bit in the long run. Someone might do that if they're also selling the PC cards, but they're more likely to develop them as separate products (how many people, exactly, will turn a monitor into a full PC?), which eliminates the need for a removable card.
Ah, I remember them now. "Mini ARM computer reusing PCMCIA connector" would have sufficed to describe it.
It's funny how, on articles about things everyone here knows about, like BitCoin or the Raspberry Pi, the summary wastes space explaining the context (ie. what BitCoin or RaspPi is), but on an article about something relatively obscure, it just throws model numbers and acronyms at you.
As far as I can discern without reading TFA, this is just some new ARM system-on-a-chip, not particularly revolutionary or powerful, but aimed at use in open-source environments.
No arguing there. MtGox won control of the market by doing their job well, but the very fact that there *is* a single exchange with 80% of the market is a cause for concern.
I was speaking of the Bitcoin human network, not the technical one. Wipe MtGox off this plane of existence and people will still be fully able to transfer Bitcoins to each other, but they'll lose a significant amount of the economic reason to do so.
MtGox is the major point for converting Bitcoins into other currencies, and like it or not, the people keeping their money in Bitcoins are speculators right now. Everyone doing actual purchases is converting money to Bitcoins, exchanging the Bitcoins for goods, and then the seller takes those Bitcoins and converts them back. And MtGox is the primary exchange for converting Bitcoins to and from other currencies.
And the reason people are doing so is because Bitcoin is still very unstable, prone to spikes and crashes, today just being a particularly dramatic one. People don't like to keep money in an unstable currency.
So we need more stability in the Bitcoin market, and until we get that stability a large portion of the Bitcoin market is conversion. And thus, we need stability in the conversion market, which only happens when you have significant redundancy.
MtGox owns too much of the Bitcoin conversion market. They need a solid competitor.
Right now, if you can harm MtGox, you harm the entire Bitcoin network. Slow it down and you slow down Bitcoin trades. Manipulate it and you manipulate the entire market. Regulate it and you regulate most of the market. Destroy it, and Bitcoin may completely die, at least in the short term.
I'm not saying any of this is MtGox's fault - they're doing a good job at what they do. But they're the closest thing Bitcoin has to a single point of failure. We need redundancy.
First, as far as the network goes, treat it the same way you would treat any attack. Block IPs, add filters, whatever you normally do. If they are simulating an attack, you should simulate a defense.
Second, the human response. Make sure that this is actually an authorized security test. Tell them that if you cannot get confirmation that this is an authorized attack, you will have to treat it as an unauthorized one, which means contacting law enforcement, as per standard protocols for dealing with health information. This is "cover your ass" stuff here - if it actually isn't authorized, and you get hacked, you're likely to take the blame for it. And if it is authorized, well, you look like you're doing your job by detecting and responding to the threat.
Microsoft "devices" (which apparently means "Windows devices" - mainly laptops, desktops and servers, with a few smartphones and tablets) are being outsold by Apple devices (mainly smartphones, tablets, and laptops, with a handful of desktops and even fewer servers).
In other news, Ford is outselling Airbus in terms of vehicles sold, and India makes more films than America.
Not only is there the whole computer-vs-mobile thing (with mobile being a growing market and actual computers having plateaued), but Microsoft itself is pretty new as a hardware manufacturer. They make Surface RT, Surface Pro, two generations of Xbox, the Zune, and a long series of mice and keyboards. Whereas Apple has been making hardware since day 1. So a more fair comparison would be "hardware sold" and "software sold" (not counting OS copies bundled with the hardware). Bet you it ends up with each winning one.
PS: Doesn't the Xbox count as a "Microsoft device"? TFA doesn't say, but they don't seem to include it. Seems unfair to have "OS X + iOS" versus "Windows" when Microsoft has their own locked-down, walled-garden media-consuming device.
No, no, people know the word "megapixel". It's the thing that makes the cameras better. Always get the one with the most megapixels. Or is it the biggest megapixels? Just get the biggest number, that's always better. All the megapixels.
And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).
"By visiting this site, you agree not to vote for [list of all people who sponsored the bill] or else pay a $10,000 penalty."
Get them where it hurts - right in their re-election campaign.
I dunno, "megatons" are a fairly popular unit of measure (both in "1 million tons mass/weight" and in "million tons of TNT equivalent" senses)
Massive throughput is all well and good, very useful for many cases, but does this help with latency?
Near as I can tell, DRAM latency has maybe halved since the Y2K era. Processors keep throwing more cache at the problem, but that only helps to a certain extent. Some chips even go to extreme lengths to avoid too much idle time while waiting on RAM ("HyperThreading", the UltraSPARC T* series). Getting better latency would probably help performance more than bandwidth.
I believe it was implied that this was per annum (270 TW-h/year).
If Wolfram Alpha is correct, that comes out to 31GW, which it notes is about 1/75th the world's power consumption. This seems relatively reasonable, more so than if you interpret it as per-month (16% the world's power) or per-decade (roughly the power of the Hoover Dam).
Still very confusing, though. Bad science.
Well of course. The People's Democratic Republic of Korea, having reached true and perfect communism, has no need for currency or money as all goods are distributed equitably according to need, not according to some barbaric, capitalist tool of oppression like the nickels used by the American pig-demons or their southern puppets to buy weapons with which to destroy the peace-loving and free people of the People's Democratic Republic and their Glorious Leader(s).
</sarcasm>
No. RPM hasn't changed much. I've seen 15KRPM drives that are as old as I am, and I've seen 5400RPM drives that came out yesterday.
What does change is data density, which does affect sequential read/write speeds (and to a much lesser extent random). So a modern desktop 7200RPM drive can have similar performance to a 10,000RPM server drive from 2004 (date pulled OOMA, use loosely).
Bitcoin mining right now is barely profitable using GPUs, and has been a complete waste on the CPU for over a year.
Just because the machines are on 24/7, you cannot add load to them without increasing their electrical consumption. I have a desktop that idles around 80W, and under full load can reach 400W. And don't forget, every watt a computer uses means one more watt of heat that needs to be removed.
The desktops, unless you have gaming-level GPUs in them, aren't going to turn a profit just on the electrical costs. The HPC might, depending on what sort of hardware is in it. If you're set up to do a lot of GPGPU computing, it would work well. Or if you have FPGAs that you can configure for mining. But if it's just a bunch of CPUs, it's not going to work. Bitcoin mining was explicitly designed to be embarrassingly parallel - the only thing that matters is throwing a lot of wimpy cores at it.
I think this joke is better:
"Michael Jackson was proof of the American Dream, that you can become whoever you want to be. He was born a poor black man, and died a rich white woman."
That depends on whether the average user can exchange bitcoins for the good or service they desire.
If, and *only* if, that hacker meets either one of the following requirements:
1) An active member of a military we are at war with, following a proper, public and legal declaration of war
2) Engaged in an activity that has, or inevitably will, result in deaths.
*and* the killing meets all the following requirements:
1) Civilian casualties will not exceed those who would have been (or were) killed by the attack
2) The information on the target is reliable enough to meet whatever standards are in place for killing other types of targets
3) The expense of killing them does not exceed the damage that would have been (or was) inflicted by an attack.
4) There is no reasonable way to bring them back alive for a fair and public trial
This makes me suspect that Apple deliberately started rumors that they were working on a "smartwatch" simply to trick other companies into wasting effort into actually developing such a useless product.