I installed chrome, didn't like it and uninstalled it. Thunderbird started crashing. I found a "chrome" search running that had a conflict with thunderbird. Stopping the search (which I wasn't running) allowed thunderbird to go back to working. I still haven't found what was running the search.
One thing I've found is magnetic media is not permanent and I've found on-line storage to be risky as I often hear someone complaining about photos they lost when some outfit closed. We really don't know how long optical media will last but *generally* it's a long time. So even with the most reputable there is at least some risk. HOWEVER using an on-line, reputable back up might be best for a small data set like yours. I've had photos stolen even from the chains in the old days so I'm not real fond of on-line or the so-called cloud.
You do have every thing on your computer backed up? Right? (I'd bet against it)
You can use DVDs, but they do require care in storage, but are more likely to protect your data integrity. Keep two identical sets and if you view the backups often keep another set for viewing. People who keep small data sets (photos) on their computer, or even locally on separate media inevitably end up losing photos unless they develop a very good naming convention AND indexing system.
I have over 35,000 scans from the film era, and several times that shot in digital. The total represents nearly 60 years and two generations of photography. I keep them on a computer, backed up to a second computer across the network and on DVDs.
Actually there are 5 computers that back up each other across a network. I find as I go back though the older images on disk I have to refresh about 5 a month although I may go for months at a time without having to refresh any. JPGs are the format that usually ends up corrupted. I don't recall having lost any tiffs.
So it becomes a problem of choice. All forms of storage for the individual carry some element of risk. Few back up as they should, then complain when the HD fails. HDs don't often fail, but IIRC I've lost 5 over the years. However data on HDs does become corrupt far more often although most of the time it's the operator who corrupts the data due to mistakes. So..
1. Develop a good naming system
2. develop a good back up system with at least two copies kept in different location.
3. Choose a good archiving method either personal or on-line that is different than your back-up.
Not even close. purity levels of 5 nines are no were good enough. You are looking at purity levels in the tenths or hundredths of a part per billion. IOW
0.000 000 000.(010 or 001) IOW 10 or 11 zeros followed by a 1. Less efficient devices can be made using lower purity. Five nines would likely be pretty crude.
Recrystallization is possible.
They are not using molybdenite, they are using molybdenum disulphide probably in it's crystalline form.which is fine. Molykote is using a form of it in a suspension.
I doubt that a patent would be a problem.
As for Silicon and transistors. Take Quartz, and decompose it using a DC arc to make elemental Silicon. You could play with it and probably make some working transistors. BUT both MoS2 and Silicon require a LOT of likely proprietary processing to get them to a purity level where they can be useful. We are talking purity levels in tenths or possibly hundredths of a part per Billion. Probably not going to be done at home. Then the base material is doped to make it useful which is another problem due to purity levels. Even at these levels I think it'd probably be possible to make working devices. Working and useful are not quite the same. look at the first transistors from Bell Labs.
Elemental (poly crystal) Silicon is now very inexpensive and available at purity levels that could only be approached after many levels of processing the material into single crystal (Multi pass float zone refining) 20 or 30 years ago . The last prices I saw (a long time back) were between $2 and $6 a kilo for poly crystalline silicon at a higher purity than we were once able to get in 16 pass, float zoned rods that sold for $160 a gram. I do not know what typical prices and purity levels are at present but I can only assume the purity levels are even higher than they were. Production efficiency has improved to an amazing level. World capacity has multiplied many fold with some companies having doubled their capacities many times over in the last 20 years. Even though the MoS2 technology looks promising it would likely take several decades before it could surpass the Silicon based devices on a production scale, even if it's an order or two magnitudes better. Ramping these up to competitive levels would likely take "Billions" of dollars. OTOH they *may* be the high performance devices of the future which means they would eventually prevail.
I think,which means I don't really know, that MoS2 would lend itself to thin film technology quite readily. That in itself is a big step. I think it also might work well in inexpensive, thin film solar cells. At least it's something to think about.
Everything is relative. I agree with bayankaran when the US is compared "politically" and freedom financially to pursue individual life styles and goals compared to the rest of the world. The potential still exists for those who really work at it to become upwardly mobile at least for now, but there are those whose goal is to spread the wealth not just between classes but around the world. When that happens, historically around the world it has been the working, or middle class that suffers the most even though it is presented to them ahead of time, as "it's all for them". Only later do they find out the truth and that upwardly mobile number becomes smaller and smaller.
What I see is the change from the individual's independence, freedom, and willingness to take responsibility for their own actions and circumstances, to one of expecting entitlements. More and more, people are depending on the government to take care of them and hardships have to be blamed on someone else. I planned ahead and prepared for retirement, Well before retirement and after the kids were out of school, we sold our nice size home and purchased a small home that would suffice for retirement. (IOW we adjusted our planned expenses down to what we expected after we both retired) Having paid in all that money to Social Security (SS) I found that I included that as part of my retirement. Had it not been for SS I could have invested that money and retired in style. (As it was I did invest every cent I could spare) Still I planned my retirement around what I expected to have for income from a pension, SS, and investments. Had we all had the money that went to SS put into investment accounts, we and the market would be in far better shape than what we find at present.
Those entering the work force in general don't expect to see any payback from SS. In my case I paid in all that money just to have the government raid the account and use the money for other "things". I'll never get back what I paid in let alone any earnings like I'd have had from the market. Sure there are crooks in the financial sector, but I think the ones in government out number them and in many cases the ones in government aided the ones in the financial sector. I have more faith in that sector providing a reasonable income, than I do the government taking care of me in my old age. I particularly distrust the government taking care of my health when it's to the advantage of their balance sheets to see me go before I run up any big bills.
Having gone through the school system likely before 90% o more of those reading this blog were born and before the progressives had such a pervasive influence in our schools, I am afraid I have to agree with aussersterne on most of his points. We have revisionist history being taught and the class rooms have to remain politically correct out of fear that one or two parents will cause them grief. Religion seems to trump science when it comes to discussion because the schools "in general" appear to fear disagreeing with religion. It's not just the teachers, but school officials and the school board as well. Back then, Separation of Church and State had a whole different meaning than what the supreme court ruled no so long ago.
After 26 years I quit a good paying job and went back to college to earn a BS in CS with minors in Art and Math. In a sociology class the prof said she had read that people were not as success oriented as previous generations and asked if any one believed that. There were only a couple of hands raised, one being mine. She asked why I thought so. I replied that the average graduate went to college just to get a degree (the easier the better), then a job where they could work 8 hours a day, go home, prop their feet up, have a beer, and watch "the game".. Almost the entire back row stood up to argue that was just my opinion of success oriented. Not one of them knew the difference between succeeding at something and being success oriented. Success oriented is continually striving to do better and setting new goals yet only 2 or 3 in the whole class knew that. It was on the next test and there were students in there who barely survived a class where common sense would have earned an A with little study.
Older, simple data is more difficult to corrupt than the more sophisticated data of today. OTOH the equipment of today is more capable of detecting the corrupt data.
About 3 aircraft a year have to make emergency landings due to lightning strikes. Of those maybe one will have physical damage. Every few years there will be one with some rather spectacular damage. Rarely is a plane brought down by lightning.
BTW the Dreamliner is composed of carbon fiber which makes a good shield for RF. OTOH the windows make well...good windows for the RF.
The V-6 in the "cab forward" Chrysler design (Around 1990) had a problem with the computer, but the problem was it causing RFI, not being interfered with. The thing had a terrible signal on 147.00 and could drowned out the signal from a 100 watt repeater that was 2 miles distant when the car was nearly a block away. I had a number of dealers try to solve the problem, but there was no help from Chrysler.
First he's right about not being hardened, but not about voiding warranty. The Toyota dealer installed my ham rig for me.
Most companies will accept up to at least 100 watts output and many like the one I used will even do the installation. Many hams are running 500 to 600 watts from 1.8 through 30 MHz and up to 160 watts on VHF is not uncommon.
in the North it's the opposite. Low humidity comes with the low temps. On a bright clear day shocks are common, but not a safety issue and not big deal. That is unless you are filling up the car, leave the hose, get in the car, then go back and touch the nozzle.:-))
The electronics in cars is not hardened against much of anything. Then again it doesn't generally need to be. OTOH there have been instances of transmitters mounted in the car affecting fuel injection, brakes, and the actual computer in the car. Various companies have varying tolerances and acceptance for transmitters, the frequency and power level that can be mounted in the car.
The power levels from cell towers is very low even when all transmitters are combined and the frequency is on the UHF band. Power lines OTOH are only 60 Hs and represent magnetic fields which rarely affect computers.
If it has Sony in it all I have to do is remember the root kit, their attitude, and getting off what amounts of free, Hence I doubt it has the gamers best interests at heart.
Is there any danger of interference? It's possible although unlikely. The regs were written for a reason.
Is it possible? Yes, but highly unlikely unless a device malfunctions.
OTOH
It's against regulations and the law. To disregard the regulation is not only illegal, it shows a blatant disregard for the safety of others and the law.
Is it smart? No! As I said, the regs were written for a reason.
As for Huffington, they should have booted her off the flight like they would have most individuals.
All that said, I have never had a problem with devices even when sitting up front. I've worn a small head set (under the aviation head set) connected to a 5 Watt VHF HT setting in the window and never noticed any interference in either the navs or coms. I've also set "up front" when not flying and used that same HT to talk to my wife driving in central Michigan (on the way to the airport) when we were over South Central Ohio.
Computers and particularly lap tops have caused problems with communications radios on the ground. If they can do it there they can do it in the air and it has happened. Passengers were asked to turn off all devices and the problem went away. That was reported and no one turned anything back on. I've only heard of the one instance and that was about 12 years ago.
Short circuiting a battery is no more a problem for carry on as it is for checked baggage.
The rule for turning off cell phones is an FCC rule, not FAA and yes the remark below about connecting to more towers is a problem.
Yes they do connect contrary to the comment below. If there is a signal showing it is connected. Of course you could have it end up blocked as I did.
Yes I've forgotten to turn mine off and when I went to use it the thing had gone into emergency contact only. I had to turn it off and back on before it'd work.
Of course there is always some one who knows more than the regs.
This sounds just like the claims for BPL here in the states. Claims of no interference problems, Then claims of "all the problems had been fixed" when they never addressed them. OTOH several companies did eliminate RFI on specific bands, but not on the International broadcast bands. In the end they were unable to deliver any where near the bandwidth claimed and those cities and utilities suckered into signing up, quietly dropped the BPL although it may be in use for smart meters then again most of those are on a much lower frequency.
It's not that a lot of people want to see it fail, although the tactics used by some vendors didn't make any friends and it just wasn't capable of delivering what had been promised. You also have to remember that it is a shared service so the the band width gets divided between all the users on any particular leg of the system. That and with 3 or 4 repeaters required every mile on the backhaul before being refed, it just wasn't very efficient. They basically had to run fiber in parallel with the lines to refeed on a regular basis.
HOWEVER the UK has one advantage and that is the number of homes on a transformer. Here in the states we may have a couple home on one transformer, or in higher density areas it could be up to maybe 4 or so. In the UK I understand you may have up to 20 on one transformer so there are far fewer discontinuities in the distribution line. It takes a coupling to get around every transformer and into the homes so if one coupling can feed 20 homes compared to maybe 4, that means only 1/5th the couplings would be required.
I don't think this has anything to do with "Internet 2".
Still reaching the claimed speeds/bandwidth almost violates the laws a physics. It'd be interesting to see how it'd work with 3 or 4 families watching streaming video on one feed would work.
I see a lot of joking about the possibility of CMEs and the possible results, but how many making jokes realize that we've been hit glancing blows by CMEs and they did major damage?
Look up the power outage in Quebec that was caused by a CME?
We lost one major communications satellite that is believed to have been caused by a CME.
We've had no real major problems since electronics went solid state except the possibility of that one satellite and the results were not far reaching,
OTOH we have lost GPS signals a couple of times, once I believe was for several hours. That doesn't sound like much, but think of being in an airliner operating on today's reduced separation standards with minimum spacing and losing their nav signals. Ground based back up navigation is planned to be eliminated.
The Governments and scientific community take the odds, slim as they are, quite seriously. We have two satellites that monitor the sun 24 X 7. One satellite leads the earth in orbit and the other lags. They are far enough apart to be able to see most of the sun's surface. This allows them to fix speed, direction, and mass of CME's. They also should give time enough to shut down the power grids if a major CME were pointed right at us. It's not just a matter of restarting the grid if it fails. with the few transformer spares on hand it could take months to get the entire grid back up and running. The only real way to protect it is to shut it down if a CME were to directly impact Earth. This project, BTW is called Stereo and near real time images are available on the Net.
As to the sun's activity which is predicted to be low even at the next peak, major CMEs have been observed during relatively quiet periods of solar activity.
Yes the odds are extremely low of us taking a direct hit by a CME, but the odds of catastrophic damage should one hit are extremely high.
To me, after listening to the head of the FCC being interviewed, I'm more inclined to believe the right in this case. What he was saying was not at all what we have envisioned as Net Neutrality. In addition they are leaving loopholes for the "big guns" to still regulate what they pass and don't, the prevention of which was what Net Neutrality was supposed to be all about. So Comcast, AT&T, and any of the other large companies can just thumb their noses at users.
There is a dangerous precedent here in that those who are supposed to have the power have told the FCC in specific terms, NO. With lobbyists and time we might have gotten congress to pass a real Net Neutrality bill as it was originally envisioned. But the FCC has taken it upon themselves to arbitrarily rule after being specifically told not to by those who are supposed to have the power. Now we have to deal with what amounts to a rogue agency arbitrarily setting standards and regulations. Rules and regs that are likely to be challenged and overturned because they either did not follow procedures or exceeded their authority.
First, I always read the Ethanol was no more than an "Interim" solution and was not to be permanent. Of course temporary becomes permanent when you start giving out money.
Aside from the figure listed the major ones are missed.
According to "Business Investor's Daily" The subsidy for alcohol amounts to $10 USD per gallon! IIRC each job created from stimulus money costs about 12 million dollars.
On top of this there are high tariffs on imported alcohol.
To top it off, Corn is one of the least productive sources of alcohol where as switch grass produces 3 to 5 times more alcohol for less energy input. Switch grass does not take crop land out of food production either, Using it to make alcohol does not raise food prices either.Corn is probably one of the worst grains/foods to use as it raises the cost of almost all foods we have to purchase. Now all this is iIF you consider alcohol a viable fuel, or fuel additive in the first place.
Contrary to claims I have no problems using gas with alcohol that is up to a year old. OTOH Alcohol is corrosive to many fuel systems and should only be used in stainless steal systems. There is a reason the feds won't let us use it in airplanes.
In addition I understand that combustion products are more toxic than those from gas alone.
But how good a business model is the current system? How long before the prices of content and band width go up? When providers have to pay the same as cable and satellite they will have to pass the increased costs on. As bandwidth goes up, some one has to pay for it. As the load on ISPs goes up, some one has to pay for it. The Internet's huge success may be it's downfall as far as the current system goes. Add the increased cost of content to increased costs of access and bandwidth and the Internet may lose much of its attraction for low cost.
Space on the Internet is also finite and yes, some shows really do get canceled because they are not profitable although it's usually the case of something else being more profitable. They also get canceled because the offend someone's sensibilities which is not usually a problem on the Net.
"To me" watching a TV show on the Internet qualifies as watching TV. However, I send far more time surfing, doing business, and working on the internet than I do watching programs, be they on the TV set or the computer monitor. I spend a good 8 hours a day on the Net and I've been doing that was since I went to college and graduated at age 50. I retired in 97 and my Internet usage went up as did my wife's.
OTOH we do have satellite TV with an HD set and the ability to watch over 20 channels off the air (OTA) with most in HD. I find very little of interest on the major networks and the news to be more entertainment oriented and biased to the point of near uselessness. We do watch the local news and weather.
However I think the days of inexpensive movies and TV shows on the Net may be numbered. The studios are going to demand a lot more from NetFlix who pay a fraction for the same content that cable and satellite do. "Add to that" the likelihood that many ISPs will start charging for the amount downloaded AND possibly block competing content the price of entertainment on the Net may go up considerably. Of course I expect other suppliers to cost what ever the traffic will take and remain competitive.
I am on a tiered system that is limited only by the speed you sign up for. IOW you can run it 24 X 7. There's quite a difference on how much you can download between 256K and 16 Mbs connections per month.
When NetFlix has to pay the same for content as cable and satellite and charge accordingly the competition should get interesting. According to a NY Times article they are paying about a 1/4 or less than cable or satellite. The entertainment industry says that will change next year when the contracts are renewed. I would expect the prices of other providers to follow suit. That may put a crimp in streaming video and it may not.
But, what difference does it make for the end user as to how the FCC defines broadband? Either you have sufficient band width or you don't. Anything above "sufficient" is nothing but bragging rights. I have 16 Mbs but rarely see it go above 8. A tracert has never shown the bottleneck to be here or my provider. At odd hours streaming video works fine, but "prime time" shows pauses,..lots of pauses while the Internet plays catch-up at a few hundred K to maybe 1 Mbs.
While the FCC is voting on 'the "fairness doctrine" AND calling it "Web Neutrality" this seems to have turned into a pissing match between blaming Republicans and Democrats.
The head of the FCC has publicly stated they expect to force "equal time" for opposing opinions using "Net Neutrality". He said nothing about what Net Neutrality was originally supposed to be such as preventing ISPs from blocking competitors, charging extra to carry specific types of content, and even blocking competition content such as I believe it's Comcast already blocking Netflix.
Congress has already decided (which I disagree with), which makes the FCC's action contrary to congress who is supposed to have the power over the FCC.
This means that what ever the FCC decides on their own, may likely be challenged possibly drawing the whole thing out for months or years.
However ignoring the normal route for bills and regulation has been quite common for this administration. IOW is the two houses can not agree it ends up with a presidential decree that again ignores the proper channels for laws and regulations.
I found it not only interesting, but required a bit of thinking as it covered several sub plots and was just at the point where it should have started getting good.
OTOH maybe George Soros has decided he's going to lump scifi with Glenn Beck. He is after all, "the spooky dude" That want's control what we read, now maybe it's what we watch as well.:-))
Slashdot Mirror
I installed chrome, didn't like it and uninstalled it. Thunderbird started crashing. I found a "chrome" search running that had a conflict with thunderbird. Stopping the search (which I wasn't running) allowed thunderbird to go back to working. I still haven't found what was running the search.
One thing I've found is magnetic media is not permanent and I've found on-line storage to be risky as I often hear someone complaining about photos they lost when some outfit closed. We really don't know how long optical media will last but *generally* it's a long time. So even with the most reputable there is at least some risk. HOWEVER using an on-line, reputable back up might be best for a small data set like yours. I've had photos stolen even from the chains in the old days so I'm not real fond of on-line or the so-called cloud. You do have every thing on your computer backed up? Right? (I'd bet against it) You can use DVDs, but they do require care in storage, but are more likely to protect your data integrity. Keep two identical sets and if you view the backups often keep another set for viewing. People who keep small data sets (photos) on their computer, or even locally on separate media inevitably end up losing photos unless they develop a very good naming convention AND indexing system. I have over 35,000 scans from the film era, and several times that shot in digital. The total represents nearly 60 years and two generations of photography. I keep them on a computer, backed up to a second computer across the network and on DVDs. Actually there are 5 computers that back up each other across a network. I find as I go back though the older images on disk I have to refresh about 5 a month although I may go for months at a time without having to refresh any. JPGs are the format that usually ends up corrupted. I don't recall having lost any tiffs. So it becomes a problem of choice. All forms of storage for the individual carry some element of risk. Few back up as they should, then complain when the HD fails. HDs don't often fail, but IIRC I've lost 5 over the years. However data on HDs does become corrupt far more often although most of the time it's the operator who corrupts the data due to mistakes. So.. 1. Develop a good naming system 2. develop a good back up system with at least two copies kept in different location. 3. Choose a good archiving method either personal or on-line that is different than your back-up.
Not even close. purity levels of 5 nines are no were good enough. You are looking at purity levels in the tenths or hundredths of a part per billion. IOW 0.000 000 000.(010 or 001) IOW 10 or 11 zeros followed by a 1. Less efficient devices can be made using lower purity. Five nines would likely be pretty crude. Recrystallization is possible.
They are not using molybdenite, they are using molybdenum disulphide probably in it's crystalline form.which is fine. Molykote is using a form of it in a suspension. I doubt that a patent would be a problem. As for Silicon and transistors. Take Quartz, and decompose it using a DC arc to make elemental Silicon. You could play with it and probably make some working transistors. BUT both MoS2 and Silicon require a LOT of likely proprietary processing to get them to a purity level where they can be useful. We are talking purity levels in tenths or possibly hundredths of a part per Billion. Probably not going to be done at home. Then the base material is doped to make it useful which is another problem due to purity levels. Even at these levels I think it'd probably be possible to make working devices. Working and useful are not quite the same. look at the first transistors from Bell Labs. Elemental (poly crystal) Silicon is now very inexpensive and available at purity levels that could only be approached after many levels of processing the material into single crystal (Multi pass float zone refining) 20 or 30 years ago . The last prices I saw (a long time back) were between $2 and $6 a kilo for poly crystalline silicon at a higher purity than we were once able to get in 16 pass, float zoned rods that sold for $160 a gram. I do not know what typical prices and purity levels are at present but I can only assume the purity levels are even higher than they were. Production efficiency has improved to an amazing level. World capacity has multiplied many fold with some companies having doubled their capacities many times over in the last 20 years. Even though the MoS2 technology looks promising it would likely take several decades before it could surpass the Silicon based devices on a production scale, even if it's an order or two magnitudes better. Ramping these up to competitive levels would likely take "Billions" of dollars. OTOH they *may* be the high performance devices of the future which means they would eventually prevail. I think,which means I don't really know, that MoS2 would lend itself to thin film technology quite readily. That in itself is a big step. I think it also might work well in inexpensive, thin film solar cells. At least it's something to think about.
Everything is relative. I agree with bayankaran when the US is compared "politically" and freedom financially to pursue individual life styles and goals compared to the rest of the world. The potential still exists for those who really work at it to become upwardly mobile at least for now, but there are those whose goal is to spread the wealth not just between classes but around the world. When that happens, historically around the world it has been the working, or middle class that suffers the most even though it is presented to them ahead of time, as "it's all for them". Only later do they find out the truth and that upwardly mobile number becomes smaller and smaller. What I see is the change from the individual's independence, freedom, and willingness to take responsibility for their own actions and circumstances, to one of expecting entitlements. More and more, people are depending on the government to take care of them and hardships have to be blamed on someone else. I planned ahead and prepared for retirement, Well before retirement and after the kids were out of school, we sold our nice size home and purchased a small home that would suffice for retirement. (IOW we adjusted our planned expenses down to what we expected after we both retired) Having paid in all that money to Social Security (SS) I found that I included that as part of my retirement. Had it not been for SS I could have invested that money and retired in style. (As it was I did invest every cent I could spare) Still I planned my retirement around what I expected to have for income from a pension, SS, and investments. Had we all had the money that went to SS put into investment accounts, we and the market would be in far better shape than what we find at present. Those entering the work force in general don't expect to see any payback from SS. In my case I paid in all that money just to have the government raid the account and use the money for other "things". I'll never get back what I paid in let alone any earnings like I'd have had from the market. Sure there are crooks in the financial sector, but I think the ones in government out number them and in many cases the ones in government aided the ones in the financial sector. I have more faith in that sector providing a reasonable income, than I do the government taking care of me in my old age. I particularly distrust the government taking care of my health when it's to the advantage of their balance sheets to see me go before I run up any big bills.
Having gone through the school system likely before 90% o more of those reading this blog were born and before the progressives had such a pervasive influence in our schools, I am afraid I have to agree with aussersterne on most of his points. We have revisionist history being taught and the class rooms have to remain politically correct out of fear that one or two parents will cause them grief. Religion seems to trump science when it comes to discussion because the schools "in general" appear to fear disagreeing with religion. It's not just the teachers, but school officials and the school board as well. Back then, Separation of Church and State had a whole different meaning than what the supreme court ruled no so long ago. After 26 years I quit a good paying job and went back to college to earn a BS in CS with minors in Art and Math. In a sociology class the prof said she had read that people were not as success oriented as previous generations and asked if any one believed that. There were only a couple of hands raised, one being mine. She asked why I thought so. I replied that the average graduate went to college just to get a degree (the easier the better), then a job where they could work 8 hours a day, go home, prop their feet up, have a beer, and watch "the game".. Almost the entire back row stood up to argue that was just my opinion of success oriented. Not one of them knew the difference between succeeding at something and being success oriented. Success oriented is continually striving to do better and setting new goals yet only 2 or 3 in the whole class knew that. It was on the next test and there were students in there who barely survived a class where common sense would have earned an A with little study.
Older, simple data is more difficult to corrupt than the more sophisticated data of today. OTOH the equipment of today is more capable of detecting the corrupt data. About 3 aircraft a year have to make emergency landings due to lightning strikes. Of those maybe one will have physical damage. Every few years there will be one with some rather spectacular damage. Rarely is a plane brought down by lightning. BTW the Dreamliner is composed of carbon fiber which makes a good shield for RF. OTOH the windows make well...good windows for the RF.
The V-6 in the "cab forward" Chrysler design (Around 1990) had a problem with the computer, but the problem was it causing RFI, not being interfered with. The thing had a terrible signal on 147.00 and could drowned out the signal from a 100 watt repeater that was 2 miles distant when the car was nearly a block away. I had a number of dealers try to solve the problem, but there was no help from Chrysler.
First he's right about not being hardened, but not about voiding warranty. The Toyota dealer installed my ham rig for me. Most companies will accept up to at least 100 watts output and many like the one I used will even do the installation. Many hams are running 500 to 600 watts from 1.8 through 30 MHz and up to 160 watts on VHF is not uncommon.
in the North it's the opposite. Low humidity comes with the low temps. On a bright clear day shocks are common, but not a safety issue and not big deal. That is unless you are filling up the car, leave the hose, get in the car, then go back and touch the nozzle.:-))
Shielding doesn't work that way. Besides the car is setting on 4 rubber insulators.
The electronics in cars is not hardened against much of anything. Then again it doesn't generally need to be. OTOH there have been instances of transmitters mounted in the car affecting fuel injection, brakes, and the actual computer in the car. Various companies have varying tolerances and acceptance for transmitters, the frequency and power level that can be mounted in the car. The power levels from cell towers is very low even when all transmitters are combined and the frequency is on the UHF band. Power lines OTOH are only 60 Hs and represent magnetic fields which rarely affect computers.
If it has Sony in it all I have to do is remember the root kit, their attitude, and getting off what amounts of free, Hence I doubt it has the gamers best interests at heart.
Is there any danger of interference? It's possible although unlikely. The regs were written for a reason. Is it possible? Yes, but highly unlikely unless a device malfunctions. OTOH It's against regulations and the law. To disregard the regulation is not only illegal, it shows a blatant disregard for the safety of others and the law. Is it smart? No! As I said, the regs were written for a reason. As for Huffington, they should have booted her off the flight like they would have most individuals. All that said, I have never had a problem with devices even when sitting up front. I've worn a small head set (under the aviation head set) connected to a 5 Watt VHF HT setting in the window and never noticed any interference in either the navs or coms. I've also set "up front" when not flying and used that same HT to talk to my wife driving in central Michigan (on the way to the airport) when we were over South Central Ohio. Computers and particularly lap tops have caused problems with communications radios on the ground. If they can do it there they can do it in the air and it has happened. Passengers were asked to turn off all devices and the problem went away. That was reported and no one turned anything back on. I've only heard of the one instance and that was about 12 years ago. Short circuiting a battery is no more a problem for carry on as it is for checked baggage. The rule for turning off cell phones is an FCC rule, not FAA and yes the remark below about connecting to more towers is a problem. Yes they do connect contrary to the comment below. If there is a signal showing it is connected. Of course you could have it end up blocked as I did. Yes I've forgotten to turn mine off and when I went to use it the thing had gone into emergency contact only. I had to turn it off and back on before it'd work. Of course there is always some one who knows more than the regs.
This sounds just like the claims for BPL here in the states. Claims of no interference problems, Then claims of "all the problems had been fixed" when they never addressed them. OTOH several companies did eliminate RFI on specific bands, but not on the International broadcast bands. In the end they were unable to deliver any where near the bandwidth claimed and those cities and utilities suckered into signing up, quietly dropped the BPL although it may be in use for smart meters then again most of those are on a much lower frequency. It's not that a lot of people want to see it fail, although the tactics used by some vendors didn't make any friends and it just wasn't capable of delivering what had been promised. You also have to remember that it is a shared service so the the band width gets divided between all the users on any particular leg of the system. That and with 3 or 4 repeaters required every mile on the backhaul before being refed, it just wasn't very efficient. They basically had to run fiber in parallel with the lines to refeed on a regular basis. HOWEVER the UK has one advantage and that is the number of homes on a transformer. Here in the states we may have a couple home on one transformer, or in higher density areas it could be up to maybe 4 or so. In the UK I understand you may have up to 20 on one transformer so there are far fewer discontinuities in the distribution line. It takes a coupling to get around every transformer and into the homes so if one coupling can feed 20 homes compared to maybe 4, that means only 1/5th the couplings would be required. I don't think this has anything to do with "Internet 2". Still reaching the claimed speeds/bandwidth almost violates the laws a physics. It'd be interesting to see how it'd work with 3 or 4 families watching streaming video on one feed would work.
I see a lot of joking about the possibility of CMEs and the possible results, but how many making jokes realize that we've been hit glancing blows by CMEs and they did major damage? Look up the power outage in Quebec that was caused by a CME? We lost one major communications satellite that is believed to have been caused by a CME. We've had no real major problems since electronics went solid state except the possibility of that one satellite and the results were not far reaching, OTOH we have lost GPS signals a couple of times, once I believe was for several hours. That doesn't sound like much, but think of being in an airliner operating on today's reduced separation standards with minimum spacing and losing their nav signals. Ground based back up navigation is planned to be eliminated. The Governments and scientific community take the odds, slim as they are, quite seriously. We have two satellites that monitor the sun 24 X 7. One satellite leads the earth in orbit and the other lags. They are far enough apart to be able to see most of the sun's surface. This allows them to fix speed, direction, and mass of CME's. They also should give time enough to shut down the power grids if a major CME were pointed right at us. It's not just a matter of restarting the grid if it fails. with the few transformer spares on hand it could take months to get the entire grid back up and running. The only real way to protect it is to shut it down if a CME were to directly impact Earth. This project, BTW is called Stereo and near real time images are available on the Net. As to the sun's activity which is predicted to be low even at the next peak, major CMEs have been observed during relatively quiet periods of solar activity. Yes the odds are extremely low of us taking a direct hit by a CME, but the odds of catastrophic damage should one hit are extremely high.
To me, after listening to the head of the FCC being interviewed, I'm more inclined to believe the right in this case. What he was saying was not at all what we have envisioned as Net Neutrality. In addition they are leaving loopholes for the "big guns" to still regulate what they pass and don't, the prevention of which was what Net Neutrality was supposed to be all about. So Comcast, AT&T, and any of the other large companies can just thumb their noses at users. There is a dangerous precedent here in that those who are supposed to have the power have told the FCC in specific terms, NO. With lobbyists and time we might have gotten congress to pass a real Net Neutrality bill as it was originally envisioned. But the FCC has taken it upon themselves to arbitrarily rule after being specifically told not to by those who are supposed to have the power. Now we have to deal with what amounts to a rogue agency arbitrarily setting standards and regulations. Rules and regs that are likely to be challenged and overturned because they either did not follow procedures or exceeded their authority.
First, I always read the Ethanol was no more than an "Interim" solution and was not to be permanent. Of course temporary becomes permanent when you start giving out money. Aside from the figure listed the major ones are missed. According to "Business Investor's Daily" The subsidy for alcohol amounts to $10 USD per gallon! IIRC each job created from stimulus money costs about 12 million dollars. On top of this there are high tariffs on imported alcohol. To top it off, Corn is one of the least productive sources of alcohol where as switch grass produces 3 to 5 times more alcohol for less energy input. Switch grass does not take crop land out of food production either, Using it to make alcohol does not raise food prices either.Corn is probably one of the worst grains/foods to use as it raises the cost of almost all foods we have to purchase. Now all this is iIF you consider alcohol a viable fuel, or fuel additive in the first place. Contrary to claims I have no problems using gas with alcohol that is up to a year old. OTOH Alcohol is corrosive to many fuel systems and should only be used in stainless steal systems. There is a reason the feds won't let us use it in airplanes. In addition I understand that combustion products are more toxic than those from gas alone.
Strange thing is...They already have one...*Inside*. Pray tell, what good does it do there?
But how good a business model is the current system? How long before the prices of content and band width go up? When providers have to pay the same as cable and satellite they will have to pass the increased costs on. As bandwidth goes up, some one has to pay for it. As the load on ISPs goes up, some one has to pay for it. The Internet's huge success may be it's downfall as far as the current system goes. Add the increased cost of content to increased costs of access and bandwidth and the Internet may lose much of its attraction for low cost. Space on the Internet is also finite and yes, some shows really do get canceled because they are not profitable although it's usually the case of something else being more profitable. They also get canceled because the offend someone's sensibilities which is not usually a problem on the Net.
"To me" watching a TV show on the Internet qualifies as watching TV. However, I send far more time surfing, doing business, and working on the internet than I do watching programs, be they on the TV set or the computer monitor. I spend a good 8 hours a day on the Net and I've been doing that was since I went to college and graduated at age 50. I retired in 97 and my Internet usage went up as did my wife's. OTOH we do have satellite TV with an HD set and the ability to watch over 20 channels off the air (OTA) with most in HD. I find very little of interest on the major networks and the news to be more entertainment oriented and biased to the point of near uselessness. We do watch the local news and weather. However I think the days of inexpensive movies and TV shows on the Net may be numbered. The studios are going to demand a lot more from NetFlix who pay a fraction for the same content that cable and satellite do. "Add to that" the likelihood that many ISPs will start charging for the amount downloaded AND possibly block competing content the price of entertainment on the Net may go up considerably. Of course I expect other suppliers to cost what ever the traffic will take and remain competitive. I am on a tiered system that is limited only by the speed you sign up for. IOW you can run it 24 X 7. There's quite a difference on how much you can download between 256K and 16 Mbs connections per month.
When NetFlix has to pay the same for content as cable and satellite and charge accordingly the competition should get interesting. According to a NY Times article they are paying about a 1/4 or less than cable or satellite. The entertainment industry says that will change next year when the contracts are renewed. I would expect the prices of other providers to follow suit. That may put a crimp in streaming video and it may not. But, what difference does it make for the end user as to how the FCC defines broadband? Either you have sufficient band width or you don't. Anything above "sufficient" is nothing but bragging rights. I have 16 Mbs but rarely see it go above 8. A tracert has never shown the bottleneck to be here or my provider. At odd hours streaming video works fine, but "prime time" shows pauses,..lots of pauses while the Internet plays catch-up at a few hundred K to maybe 1 Mbs.
While the FCC is voting on 'the "fairness doctrine" AND calling it "Web Neutrality" this seems to have turned into a pissing match between blaming Republicans and Democrats. The head of the FCC has publicly stated they expect to force "equal time" for opposing opinions using "Net Neutrality". He said nothing about what Net Neutrality was originally supposed to be such as preventing ISPs from blocking competitors, charging extra to carry specific types of content, and even blocking competition content such as I believe it's Comcast already blocking Netflix. Congress has already decided (which I disagree with), which makes the FCC's action contrary to congress who is supposed to have the power over the FCC. This means that what ever the FCC decides on their own, may likely be challenged possibly drawing the whole thing out for months or years. However ignoring the normal route for bills and regulation has been quite common for this administration. IOW is the two houses can not agree it ends up with a presidential decree that again ignores the proper channels for laws and regulations.
Wow, they charge $42,000 for a $15,000 plug in electric that's really a hybrid and still lose money.
I found it not only interesting, but required a bit of thinking as it covered several sub plots and was just at the point where it should have started getting good. OTOH maybe George Soros has decided he's going to lump scifi with Glenn Beck. He is after all, "the spooky dude" That want's control what we read, now maybe it's what we watch as well.:-))