It worked for South Korea. Took ~35 years but eventually the newly created middle class demanded real elections and a non-military government. Meanwhile, the control group up in the North isolated themselves from the world and still has a brutal dictatorship.
the military drove technology advances and used their money to get computer systems researched and built to their requirements.
Why aren't they running hardened clients on the inside? Why are they running systems against which phishing is useful? Why aren't they deploying advanced OS technology in which stealing a password or compromising a browser doesn't give away the entire machine?
Not to mention that the whole article doesn't make sense. Either the source IP addresses are in China or they aren't. If they are, why haven't they simply dropped all packets from China, and why are they so convinced that a Chinese IP means a Chinese attacker? If the IP addresses aren't from China, what is their reason for believing it's a Chinese-0wned set of machines?
This particular offense, not producing evidence on request, is just the thing to make a judge go ballistic. Courts see it as a direct attack against their authority. Lawyers will stall discovery, bury evidence in piles of other material, or fight discovery, but it's near unthinkable in their world to destroy evidence and the penalties are severe.
Cruising down the freeway takes on the order of ten kilowatts or a little less. As Flying Pig points out, getting a quick recharge puts you close to a megawatt.
Every electric drive system I've seen from the Prius to electric dragsters winds up at a design optimum of 200-400 volts. We're therefore talking 2500 to 5000 amps, which is out of wire territory and into busbar territory, before allowing for inefficiencies.
Which may be the real problem. Pump a megawatt through something, and every percentage point of losses means ten kilowatts of heat you have to manage somehow. Some battery charging technology brags of "up to" 95% efficiency. Is there any way to handle that without liquid cooling?
>Finally, if you want to make your power plant cleaner at some point in the future it is a bit easier than retrofitting a large number of cars.
Also, the power plant is not sitting in traffic on the street next to sidewalks and apartments full of people. Even if the only benefit were to relocate pollution, even if none of the other advantages existed, there'd still be a benefit.
This application is a bad match for renewables unless you're in an area with really steady winds.
Conservation might be the better tack. DC power distribution? Watch out for voltage drops though. Virtualization? Fewer but larger hard disks? There will be tradeoffs but there should be real room for improvement at the design stage.
Scrap the triple damages for "willful" infringement. People should be encouraged to look up patents so they can license existing inventions instead of wastefuly duplicating effort. That's what the system was supposed to be for.
Related, allow a patent search that meets some reasonable criteria (e.g. done via the patent office) to be a defense against infringement.
Allow economic damages only. If you're not trying to get money out of your patent then you shouldn't get money out of infringers.
Patent office should keep some engineers, or maybe 10-year-olds, on staff. When an application comes in, these people are asked "how would you solve the underlying problem?" If they come up with the same answer as the patent application within a day, the application is thrown out for obviousness.
Someone agrees with you about oh-so-precious neologisms like "pharming" being considered harmful. "Pharming", besides being cutesy, is uncommunicative: it doesn't convey any more about the nature of the attack than "blepping" would, and with more risk of confusion as everyone tries to figure out how DNS spoofing relates to agriculture.
five of the 11 nations that lead the U.S. in per capita broadband penetration, including Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Canada, have significantly lower population densities than the U.S.
Additionally, do even the most densely populated spots in the US have routine affordable 100Mbps service like that in Japan and South Korea?
>It's only too easy to cut a POTS line, or tie it up by dialing-in to it, which is exactly what any competent burglar will do.
In movies, and in some cities. Check with your local PD's crime prevention officer about trends in your area.
Random burglars do have the option of moving on to the house next door that doesn't have an alarm system at all, saving the precious seconds to locate and cut the line. Targeted attacks are rare and quite difficult to handle.
When I researched my home system, most of the signalling protocols predated Bell 212A. They were crude, proprietary, and ran at speeds measured in tens of characters per second. Anything that slow ought to be robust.
...web players such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon and eBay. For these systems, scale, resilience and real-time throughput are major concerns. In contrast to the other two classes, these systems need to process vast numbers of simultaneous tasks, to deliver guaranteed real-time performance...
None of those offer or require real-time guarantees.
Unlike today's search engines and data mining systems, which essentially search the past, continuous search is about searching the present and the future.
Google Alerts is here now.
A better article would have started with the table that defines "supercruncher" and proceeded to describe the architectural issues of building one. Ideally it would have addressed the software challenges.
The founders believed that the states would protect their people against federal tyranny. It's in the Federalist Papers, which are utterly fascinating reading.
That idea did get turned upside down less than a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.
>Not programmatically, but from me personally interacting with Explorer to manage my data.
HP Labs's badly underreported Polaris hooked the file open dialog to add the selected file to the sandbox, recognizing that the user was making an implicit grant of authority to the application to work on the file. That's the way it should be done
>Do you know how annoying it is when some uppity prick like Newton or Einstein comes along and claims that all the old theories are wrong?
Maybe scientists are too isolated from the general public. Anyone acquainted with a scientist would know the excitement that comes when a new theory suddenly makes sense of an attic full of observations (example: plate tectonics) or opens up new fields of inquiry (relativity, quantum mechanics).
Exactly. Get a haircut or a cab ride, or answer the door when someone holding a Bible shows up, and you'll get examples of people pushing their beliefs. We're simply more likely to hear from famous people because they can reach more listeners at a time.
Have you ever seen a paper come back with comments from the referees?
>The sad fact that he is slowly being ostrasized for his differing viewpoint a black eye on the science community
Notice how the conclusions of climatologists are data-driven? Under a much more environmentalist US administration, they were still coming up with "we don't know yet but we know this is possible". With active hostility from funding sources, but with more field data, the state of the field now lets them say "very likely" there's human-caused climate change.
We keep hearing that there's some kind of groupthink among climatologists. It would be a logical fallacy to point out that we keep hearing it because self-interested people are using endless repetition as a propaganda technique: it might still be true. But a single logical thought demolishes the idea:
What kind of "groupthink" is it that tells you they don't know whether it will be 1.4 or 5.8 degrees C of increase, tells you the probability that they're wrong about human causation, and argues in public about why Greenland is melting faster than they had predicted?
If you experiment with an industrial process for months or years, spending money exploring blind alleys to find the one right combination of pressures and temperatures reaction times, you've done nothing "creative" but it's an investment that patents are meant to protect. Your work is a contribution to the "useful arts".
Should discovery be treated the same way? The answer came out "yes" in the case of patents for plants, so there is at least precedent.
The case against is that the government shouldn't grant monopolies unless there's proof of a market failure happening if they don't. Since people were busy discovering genes even without patent protection, well,...
Slashdot Mirror
It worked for South Korea. Took ~35 years but eventually the newly created middle class demanded real elections and a non-military government. Meanwhile, the control group up in the North isolated themselves from the world and still has a brutal dictatorship.
the military drove technology advances and used their money to get computer systems researched and built to their requirements.
Why aren't they running hardened clients on the inside? Why are they running systems against which phishing is useful? Why aren't they deploying advanced OS technology in which stealing a password or compromising a browser doesn't give away the entire machine?
Not to mention that the whole article doesn't make sense. Either the source IP addresses are in China or they aren't. If they are, why haven't they simply dropped all packets from China, and why are they so convinced that a Chinese IP means a Chinese attacker? If the IP addresses aren't from China, what is their reason for believing it's a Chinese-0wned set of machines?
This particular offense, not producing evidence on request, is just the thing to make a judge go ballistic. Courts see it as a direct attack against their authority. Lawyers will stall discovery, bury evidence in piles of other material, or fight discovery, but it's near unthinkable in their world to destroy evidence and the penalties are severe.
Aren't antibodies a B cell thing?
Cruising down the freeway takes on the order of ten kilowatts or a little less. As Flying Pig points out, getting a quick recharge puts you close to a megawatt.
Every electric drive system I've seen from the Prius to electric dragsters winds up at a design optimum of 200-400 volts. We're therefore talking 2500 to 5000 amps, which is out of wire territory and into busbar territory, before allowing for inefficiencies.
Which may be the real problem. Pump a megawatt through something, and every percentage point of losses means ten kilowatts of heat you have to manage somehow. Some battery charging technology brags of "up to" 95% efficiency. Is there any way to handle that without liquid cooling?
>Finally, if you want to make your power plant cleaner at some point in the future it is a bit easier than retrofitting a large number of cars.
Also, the power plant is not sitting in traffic on the street next to sidewalks and apartments full of people. Even if the only benefit were to relocate pollution, even if none of the other advantages existed, there'd still be a benefit.
This application is a bad match for renewables unless you're in an area with really steady winds.
Conservation might be the better tack. DC power distribution? Watch out for voltage drops though. Virtualization? Fewer but larger hard disks? There will be tradeoffs but there should be real room for improvement at the design stage.
Scrap the triple damages for "willful" infringement. People should be encouraged to look up patents so they can license existing inventions instead of wastefuly duplicating effort. That's what the system was supposed to be for.
Related, allow a patent search that meets some reasonable criteria (e.g. done via the patent office) to be a defense against infringement.
Allow economic damages only. If you're not trying to get money out of your patent then you shouldn't get money out of infringers.
Patent office should keep some engineers, or maybe 10-year-olds, on staff. When an application comes in, these people are asked "how would you solve the underlying problem?" If they come up with the same answer as the patent application within a day, the application is thrown out for obviousness.
Someone agrees with you about oh-so-precious neologisms like "pharming" being considered harmful. "Pharming", besides being cutesy, is uncommunicative: it doesn't convey any more about the nature of the attack than "blepping" would, and with more risk of confusion as everyone tries to figure out how DNS spoofing relates to agriculture.
With DC-DC downconverters, which also generate heat (and potentially EMI).
You'd need some kind of protective footwear.
Never go near the adders without water moccasins.
>No problems here.
Unless you have a fire when you're not at home.
>It's only too easy to cut a POTS line, or tie it up by dialing-in to it, which is exactly what any competent burglar will do.
In movies, and in some cities. Check with your local PD's crime prevention officer about trends in your area.
Random burglars do have the option of moving on to the house next door that doesn't have an alarm system at all, saving the precious seconds to locate and cut the line. Targeted attacks are rare and quite difficult to handle.
When I researched my home system, most of the signalling protocols predated Bell 212A. They were crude, proprietary, and ran at speeds measured in tens of characters per second. Anything that slow ought to be robust.
Alarm monitoring sold as VOIP compatible, I haven't tried it.
None of those offer or require real-time guarantees.
Google Alerts is here now.
A better article would have started with the table that defines "supercruncher" and proceeded to describe the architectural issues of building one. Ideally it would have addressed the software challenges.
>How much time did it took to Encyclopaedia Britannica to become a trustable source ?
Exactly. The essay complains "Six years of work has resulted in 3,000 articles of good or excellent quality", but that is not a bad score.
The founders believed that the states would protect their people against federal tyranny. It's in the Federalist Papers, which are utterly fascinating reading.
That idea did get turned upside down less than a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.
Not only that, they emit greenhouse gases too.
>Not programmatically, but from me personally interacting with Explorer to manage my data.
HP Labs's badly underreported Polaris hooked the file open dialog to add the selected file to the sandbox, recognizing that the user was making an implicit grant of authority to the application to work on the file. That's the way it should be done
>Do you know how annoying it is when some uppity prick like Newton or Einstein comes along and claims that all the old theories are wrong?
Maybe scientists are too isolated from the general public. Anyone acquainted with a scientist would know the excitement that comes when a new theory suddenly makes sense of an attic full of observations (example: plate tectonics) or opens up new fields of inquiry (relativity, quantum mechanics).
Exactly. Get a haircut or a cab ride, or answer the door when someone holding a Bible shows up, and you'll get examples of people pushing their beliefs. We're simply more likely to hear from famous people because they can reach more listeners at a time.
>Scientists should always question
Have you ever seen a paper come back with comments from the referees?
>The sad fact that he is slowly being ostrasized for his differing viewpoint a black eye on the science community
Notice how the conclusions of climatologists are data-driven? Under a much more environmentalist US administration, they were still coming up with "we don't know yet but we know this is possible". With active hostility from funding sources, but with more field data, the state of the field now lets them say "very likely" there's human-caused climate change.
We keep hearing that there's some kind of groupthink among climatologists. It would be a logical fallacy to point out that we keep hearing it because self-interested people are using endless repetition as a propaganda technique: it might still be true. But a single logical thought demolishes the idea:
What kind of "groupthink" is it that tells you they don't know whether it will be 1.4 or 5.8 degrees C of increase, tells you the probability that they're wrong about human causation, and argues in public about why Greenland is melting faster than they had predicted?
If you experiment with an industrial process for months or years, spending money exploring blind alleys to find the one right combination of pressures and temperatures reaction times, you've done nothing "creative" but it's an investment that patents are meant to protect. Your work is a contribution to the "useful arts".
...
Should discovery be treated the same way? The answer came out "yes" in the case of patents for plants, so there is at least precedent.
The case against is that the government shouldn't grant monopolies unless there's proof of a market failure happening if they don't. Since people were busy discovering genes even without patent protection, well,
Threatening an assignation sounds like something Clinton would have done.