You're missing the point of Torrent, much like a lot of judges do. A.torrent file doesn't contain any information about who to download from, or any parts of the file. This is what makes a torrent sharing site "legal" i most normal thinking countries. Simply getting your hands on the torrent file is much like getting your hands on the local directory information services (411 in the states AFAIK). You have to actually DIAL the number in order to get information about who shares the contents of the file. Now imagine in a private tracker (or directory service to maintain the imagery), that you have to give it your password BEFORE it will give you information, much like the operator asking you for a customer number, so she knows who to charge.
Similarly the.torrent contains information about the trackers which tracks users. A private tracker, thus you need to login to in order to download from any of the users that are tracked. You may even need to present a validated IP for the tracker to present you with peers, depending on how private it is.
Wont be long ? The US is way out in front when it comes to infringing on personal freedoms. Current anti terrorism laws are worded such that pretty much any goverment employee can acuse anyone of terrorism, and the very mention of the word terrorism means that the accused gets to be locked behind bars with no access to a judge or lawyer. "Enemy combatant" my ass, the law enforcement community has long felt that the law was preventing them from doing what they felt was "right". At the mere suggestion of someone being a terroist wiretap laws are invalidated, an civil rights superceeded. How can that possibly ever be true with no burden of proof ? Ever heard of ACTA ? Who do you think is lobbying that ? In the US personal freedoms are going down the drain. 15-20 years ago I loved the idea of the US and the freedom and the "we can do anything attitude". I have no idea how or even why this changed, but being on the outside, I can tell you that it has.
At LEAST the french are only cutting off peoples internet access, however, this might actually lead to somoene having to use a library instead of google, so I see this as a not 100% negative;)
My major concern with machines/robots/programs becomming intelligent enough to have feelings, is not the programming nightmare, or even the horrifying thought that one day machine will be asked to make choices or critical decisions based on data.
My major concern is that if we entrust machines with emotions, so that they can interpret the data as humans do, then we also have to trust them to act upon those emotions. Acting on your own free will is what gives you the ability to do harm unto others, deliberately or acidentally. Thus emotions requires judgement, ethics and discipline on behalf of the person (machine ?) acting upon those emotions. This is what we consider good behavior, and acceptable social interaction. These are skills that many humans do not master, so how can we expect machines to be able to behave any better than humans do ?
So I ask; Can we ask MORE of machines than we can comprehend ourselves ? And if we do, will we once again force humankind to deevolve, this time into unthinking, uncaring blobs because now we no longer even have to care, machines will do that for us aswell.
You may kid about various sci-fi commentary. But the reality is that our ability and RESPONSIBILITY to take care of ourselves and eachother has over the last century of evolution and technical revolution become more and more centralized, and moved away from the individual. Everyone expects someone else to take responsibility for everything from local traffic to world hunger. Once we make machines that have free will, will the human free will then also be centralized somewhere ?
I totally agree. You can probably choose peace of mind cheaper than by putting up home security. But where's the fun in THAT ?
What I did was ask myself: What do I want to secure, and how can I go about doing that.
In my neck of the woods, home invasions, natural disasters and similar stuff is exceedingly rare, so my protection revolves mostly around physical access (thieves), crime prevention, identification and ofcourse with the modern day "smart house", also data access.
While my budget wasn't exactly small, it was also not unlimited. So what I did was oder some cheap megapixel IP cameras. They hook up just nice to a simple linux box through a PoE switch. That pretty much takes care of identification. Should anyone like to come near my house, they're on record doing so. Most criminals dont want to get caught, so they avoid places that has cameras. Dont scrimp and buy a dummy. Thieves are NOT dummies, they know the difference.
Crime prevention is a bit harder. The idea here is to deter offenders, and have them choose another target. Cutting down bushes to allow neighbors to see your doors and windows will help a lot. Thieves and other criminals prefer to work unnoticed. Getting a dog helps. As does stuff like a gate or similar access control systems that might deter thieves that pull up with a moving truck and clean you out under the guise of being movers. Also lock up your shed and tools whenever you're not using them. Many thieves use your own tools for breaking into your house. Leaving a crowbar next to your front door is nearly as good as leaving the key in the lock. Alarm systems might work aswell. Some thieves will shy away from them because it's easier to find a place with lesser security. Marking valuables with your name or or identfying marks will generally make thieves less likely to want your stuff, it'll be harder to fence.
Securing physical access is more expensive, and cannot stand alone. Given enough time anyone can circumvent physical access blocks. But using them in conjuction with say, an alarm system that doesnt give a thief enough time to complete his obejctive will normally help. Locking up valuables in a safe is a good idea, but keeping the combination on the fridge door, not so much. Close windows when you're not at home. Use security glass, or film on your windows to prevent entry. Use two or three locks on your doors. Safety doors are also usefull. Hide stuff from plain sight, a thief will not (usually) know where you put your stuff.
Personal safety, also important to some. With an alarm, you can also have an emergency response call button. These are pretty much standard. Keep it near/on you at all times if you're living in a high risk area/situation. Learning self defense is also easy and cheap. While I dont condone the use of weapons against people as a matter of principle, this may be needed in really bad areas. Use the lockdown mode on your alarm system at night or when you're not expecting company. Again, buy a dog. Dogs are easily trained to protect you.
Computer safety: Well, the best firewall I ever saw was 3 feet of air. Good luck hacking a non connected network. Unfortunately, most people dont consider living offline an option. So keep strong passwords, use encryption when possible (with a different password), and change your passwords whenever you suspect someone has gotten a hold of it. Never use the same password for a lot fo serives. In general, hackers will try the "guessed" password on a LOT of services. Also install and keep up to date a firewall, anti spyware and anti virus software. Security through obscurity is also an option. I have yet to see a single virus on say... OS/2.... Downside is, I've also rarely seen any decent software;) Also, use threaded internet services. While wireless seems cool, it's merely one more way to hack into your system.
But like I said: Figure out your needs before you decide what's the solution.
Oh no. A fullerene is a molecule of ATOMS. The C-60 fullerene is merely a molecule consisting of 60 carbon atoms. They (fullerenes) DO exist in forms of lesser (and greater) density. Like C-50 and C-72.
Good chemical engineering indicates that it may be possible in the future to generate some very long chains arteficially. Try reading the wikipage, it's very good at putting things into laymans terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckyballs
Also not an expert. But if we eventually manage to find a molecule that can absorb energy without emitting it again in some form or other, that'd be pretty amazing from a chemistry standpoint. Our current undestanding of energy is that all energy input corresponds to a certain output. That is, energy may change form, but it may not cease to exist. this is generally also how we manage to identify molecules and objects, by measuring how they reflect radiation, or convert it to heat, mass etc.
But certainly a molecule that can absorb radiation without leaking it again, would revolutionize nuclear waste storage and facilities, where currently excess materials are encased in glass, then stainless steel, then put into storage for 6-800 years before the decay is sufficient for the material to be reused as nuclear fuel. Throughout those 6-800 years emission can be detrimetal to your health, a case that ensures 100% absorption of the radiation would be excellent !
That said, I doubt that is the case. I love the idea of it though. And I'm sure that in the future we will have a far better understanding of physics which will hopefully yield such bounties.
Actually, the C-60 has been known to exist (albeit in extremely limited number) in nature on earth. Fullerenes have later been found to exist also in very "short" chains, AFAIK down to like 20-30 atoms. The real challenge is making stuff like tubing in desired lengths and thickness. Though the ball that is the C-60 is also very intresting, because like some of the molecular medical delivery systems invested recently, you may be able to contain smaller molecules within. This is very helpfull for nano weaponry and medicines, where all you'd need is a molecular glue that will attach (only) to your target, a container (like the buckyball) something within the container, and some sort of trigger, as presumably the fulerenes are very very stable.
I could probably quote myself from the comment I made about 6-12 months ago when someone posted an article about the US wanting to buy more green power. But I wont bother to search for the article, so I'll just say:
THIS IS the problem with the currently renewable energy sources. We do not have control over their output. When they produce too little we need to augment, when they procude too much, we need to siphon the excess. The higher the percentage of renewable energy is being used, the more these extremes will vary. So putting out an economic incetive (like the energy credit in the article), means that societys requirements and needs will be countered by politics (however well intended) when they're told they're overperforming, because the energy shouldn't go to waste.
The exact same thing happens here (where we can't rely on solar during the day, due to heavy clouding during wintertime where powerconsumption is highest), the windmills overproduce heavily at night, where the cost of energy can actually drop to NEGATIVE (yes, you get paid to buy power at certain times of the night on rare occasions in northern Europe). One of the ways to counter this, is actually by tailoring consumption. So if you have a smart house, and an electric car. NOW is the time your batteries will start charging. This is also the idea behind the "better place" http://www.betterplace.com/ Weather you store in a chemical or natural battery (like a lake on the other side of a dam), or you turn down other sources of power, we WILL need a way to regulate that doesn't involve cutting production of the cleanest powersources.
I admit, there WILL be a cost to the energy infrastructure in the future (or as the article suggest, NOW). And as the energy market goes global, we're not just talking sales from state to state. But that investment should have been obvious from the initial planning of the site. If you can procude 400MW, it's no good if the infrastructure is only made to handle a third of that. That'd be like building a 1 lane freeway.
The devices that are mandatory in most of europe (funnily the home of BP being one of the exceptions, presumably because of the much more shallow waters they're drilling in there), are a little bit more than just the blowout preventer, it's a device which can be triggered in case of emergencies where the wireguided signals from the rig is unable to reach the BOP. They were, as best I can tell, developed after a problem with a platform sinking, same as what happened in the gulf.
Not being an engineer, I'm really at a loss to explain the difference between the BOP installed at BPs site and the ones that are generally being required by most other offshore oil producing countries. But from what the engineers explained to me, these remote controlled shutoff valves would have been able to stop the spill once the pipe had burst, assuming the blowout preventer ofcourse worked (which some people have questioned, since the installed "dead-mans-switch" didn't activate it). From what I understand, it may have been that such valves were not installed because of the expense of installing them when drilling at these depths, and a furhter combination of BP not being required to use them, and also questioning of their effectiveness at these depths.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news.... But oil cleanup and spill prevention has existed outside the US for decades. Thing is that the US offers a "bounty" on contaminated SEAWATER, not on reclaimed oil. So this technology has been of little intrest in the country where it was born. And at the same time, because countries like Norway, Denmark, the UK and many others are so adept at drilling at sea, they ofcourse have all reasearched in spill cleanup and even prevention. For instance, it's the LAW to equip all wells with a remote controllable shutoff valve if you want to drill in the north sea. A device which could easily have prevented the BP spill, but wasn't used, because it wasn't a requirement. Similarly, noone in their right mind would have used chemicals in the case of the BP spill, simply because collecting the oil afloat is much simpler than if you weigh it down where you can't reclaim it, and it affects the eco system much more profoundly.
That said, if the existance of these centrifuges makes the US more practical in their approach to spill clean up and prevention, I'm all for it. And if they can supplement or improove on existing technology I dont really care who funded their development. It could have been Mickey Mouse as long as the technology gets to make a difference, instead of being buried.
I dont know. I would guess that it has to do with what they can make work in a machine that's only supposed to cost some hundred $. I'm guessing it's a way to cut costs not having to pay for a license to read/write to NTFS devices. Unless MS is starting to give away those licenses for free now ?
And what makes you think that the Kiosk software can read a NTFS USB drive ? While I cannot speak for the specific types of machines mentioned in the article, I DO know that a lot of the local machines over here are using some funky Linux flavor (presumably to keep costs down), running off flash ROM. And they generally expect you to deliver the data in a FAT32 partition if you provide a USB drive. Then again, if the software is Linux, Then there usually isn't that much of a problem with viruses hopping from one device to the next, I'd wager.
You want someone to beat to the punch ? Go for the indians. EXACTLY to show that they're capable of every bit as much technology and engineering as a US based company, they have ISRO (feel free to google it). They've got lunar probes launched already. Are currently fielding a solid fuel rocket (so they may well be the first to reach Mars), as well as some nifty ideas on how to continue the human space flight programme. ISRO spends billions of dollars on their space programme, and gets 5-10 times as much for the money, because they generally contract locally.
When Kennedy stood up to the Russians when he said "we do this not because it's easy", he also created jobs and techonological advances for AMERICANS (and the rest of the world also, but primarily for his own people). This is the knowledge and legacy that Chineese and Indians are now usurping.
I do agree that ADDITIONAL spending beyond that which was originally budgetted might be frivolous currently, due to the current financial environment. However, dismantling the programme entirely will be like pissing your pants when you're cold. It may feel nice NOW, but you're going to regret it later.
I agree with many aspects of what you say. I too have been the unwitting recipient of pirated items from ebay and even once from amazon too. Unfortunately.
Also, you have to consider the fact that many countries actually ALLOW for a copy to be made (but not sold) of the stuff you buy. Many artists, and IP holders recignize that fact, and I even remember a couple of musicians getting pissed that their fans got sued for piracy, when in fact they felt that it was the people profiting from the piracy that should be punished, not the ones who ended up with the copies. In fact many DVDs and music today even comes with a "free digital copy". So times they are a changing.
As for the lazy bastards; I can say that in many places in europe we now have a (nearly) free, legal streaming service for music. For a very low price (about the cost of a single CD pr month) you can listen to and stream as much music as you like, the larger ISPs even include the subscription when you buy internet access (!). Negotiations are on the way for TV, movies and games too. Sorta like the online equivalent of movie rentals. Given everyones legal access to media, there's no need for expensive copy protection, or enforcement. And customers have access to all the media they want without having to resort to alternate methods to obtain it. So I think that "classic" piracy is a thing of the past pretty soon. It's just a matter of the IP holders moving their income stream from the storefront to the subscriptions or distribution services, and ensuring that everyone has access. But I'm sure someone will get pissed about their cut being too small (as usual).
My major concern is that everyone (today) seems to focus squarely on "lost revenues", or "piracy" without considering the fact that modern media needs to be available in modern formats. I'm fairly certain that the guys selling taped music or vinyl isn't wondering what happened to their market any longer. People posting reports like the one mentioned in the article are just showing that they live in the past, IMO. A LOT of people I know haven't bothered to buy a Blu-ray player, because currently more and more movies become available online. Owning your personal copy may be a thing of the past soon enough. I'm certain theis trend will eventually transcend all types of media and entertainment.
While I dont share your views on the technology. I do agree that this is expected behavior from a hybrid drive. I have yet to see a hybrid drive that actually does perform significantly better than a normal drive. And that just isn't happening yet.
I'm uncertain if this is because of a poor design, bad queueing, or other issues. But the very BEST hybrid I've seen performs only a couple of percent better than a normal drive, and then not even across the board, but only in specific tests.
Hybrid drives have a long way to go before they become my first choice. But at least you now have an entry level pricing on some of them, which is more than I can say for the full SSDs.
And exactly what services did your ISP provide ? I doubt they happen to have their own dedicated newsserver, and if they did, kudos to them. Most ISPs back then would provide you with a shared homepage server, a mail service, and IP access to the internet. If you were lucky.
The INTERNET was free, some places however you might have to pay for access to it. You still do today. The difference being today, hardly a single page, server or service goes up without someone profiting from it. Even good old/. has banners and adds.
I totally agree. While I haven't read the specifics of the patents themselves, I have read the entire suit MS is pulling. "hey, they're using a networked service, we have patent for that". "hey, they're using cookies, we have a patent for that". "hey, they're using a browser based manu system, we have a patent for that" And it just goes on like that. And two of the infringing patents are even identical, presumably just a version update seeing as how it's MS.
I dont care if it's MS or anyone else. This type of blanket copyright is simply killing innovation. Yes, you have a right to your code, to a specific engineering technology, or even to a specific chemical or physical product you have created, or even the process of creating said object. But not to an idea. That would be like me copyrighting the idea of "transforming one gasseous substance into another and through a chemical process using the removed atoms for fueling an organic entity" Or simply put: Breathing. Licensing anyone ?
But in all fairness, back then the internet was totally free. And everyone pretty much put up servers for altruistic, informational, educational or other similar non profit purposes. Today with the current economic climate and focus on spending policies, everyone is cutting down. And there just really isn't a viable business model for usenet that I can think of (not that I'm a doctorate in economy, but still). So I guess Usenet now just goes the way of Gopher and becomes once again a prduct of love and devotion, rather than business. I kinda like usenet that way, so I dont really mind.
While I appreaciate the links and information. I even more appreaciate the fact that someone finally said what as needed (and was heard).
As a patentholder (no, hardware, not software), I can vouch for the fact that a centralized european patent office is sorely needed. Currently, getting a patent in all of europe depends on first finding a patent office that WILL grant you the patent (which can be hard because most of 'em sit on their arse saying; "Ee dont under stand this technology, it's new to us". Yeah morons, ofcourse it's new, otherwise I wouldn't be patenting it, now would I ?), and then running around to every OTHER patent office in europe and saying "But THEY already gave me the patent rights".
And this is not only difficult, but also expensive and an entry barrier for new technology movers and inventors.
Knowing how windmills (and in particular windfarms) work, I wonder how Texans have solved the issue of overproduction ? I mean any sucker can buy a few hundred windmills from Vestas. But this type of energy is not "on demand" capable, like nuclear, coal og oil based electrical production is. Even hydropower can be scaled and "stored" up to a point. When you get a huge terrawatt windfarm, you NEED to be able to harness (and use) all of that energy, even at night, and that means either inefficient storage, or you have to close down on other production facilities. And that costs money too.
Yes, by NOT burning oil for electricity we're keeping a green carbon footprint, but the plants producing the power still needs manning, and shutdown/startup isn't exactly easy (or cheap) in many cases. In my own home I can hook up a couple of batteries, but I suspect it's a lot more difficult on this large a scale. Anyone have a clue ? Or is this just another political move ?
Well, as most companies that have to build a new datacenter will tell you. It's cheaper to generate heat than cold. So I'd go for cold containment. Generally speaking most companies do AIM to put their new datacenters as close to the north pole as possible simply because it's cheaper to use outside air that's natually cold. That puts countries like Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland in high demand for datacenters (end technicians to staff them). If the US didn't have rediculous data laws, Alska might also be ideal.
In our new datacenter we're even using the excess heating from the servers to heat the offices ontop of the giant basements below. This sort of setup is ideal for outside temperatures that generally range below the normal cooling needs of a server (or several). But in any event there's still a huge bill to pay for moving the air back and forth, so containment is definately still an issue, as is the size of the pipes when you have say... 10MW of electricity going into your servers and quite a lot of that energy coming back out as heat;)
Admittedly, having internet access in your car is "nice" on occasion. However, The article isn't about internet access, but about a mobile hotspot. Essentially connecting a wireless router to a wireless internetconnection (3G, UMTS, sattelite, whatever).
I believe this is the "why" the original poster is asking. Because if you have a wireless internet connection already..... Why would you WANT to turn it into a hotspot ? Exactly how often do you feel the need for attaching 2 or more computers to the internet while driving your car ? I'd wager not very often.
Now for busses, public transportation (we already have that here in Denmark), trams, etc. I can perfectly understand the need. But with majority of carmiles driven being with only a single occupant in the car, even the tought of a personal mobile hotspot seems rediculous.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point of Torrent, much like a lot of judges do. A .torrent file doesn't contain any information about who to download from, or any parts of the file. This is what makes a torrent sharing site "legal" i most normal thinking countries. Simply getting your hands on the torrent file is much like getting your hands on the local directory information services (411 in the states AFAIK). You have to actually DIAL the number in order to get information about who shares the contents of the file.
Now imagine in a private tracker (or directory service to maintain the imagery), that you have to give it your password BEFORE it will give you information, much like the operator asking you for a customer number, so she knows who to charge.
Similarly the .torrent contains information about the trackers which tracks users. A private tracker, thus you need to login to in order to download from any of the users that are tracked. You may even need to present a validated IP for the tracker to present you with peers, depending on how private it is.
Obscurity and privacy isn't the same thing.
Wont be long ? The US is way out in front when it comes to infringing on personal freedoms. Current anti terrorism laws are worded such that pretty much any goverment employee can acuse anyone of terrorism, and the very mention of the word terrorism means that the accused gets to be locked behind bars with no access to a judge or lawyer. "Enemy combatant" my ass, the law enforcement community has long felt that the law was preventing them from doing what they felt was "right". At the mere suggestion of someone being a terroist wiretap laws are invalidated, an civil rights superceeded. How can that possibly ever be true with no burden of proof ?
Ever heard of ACTA ? Who do you think is lobbying that ? In the US personal freedoms are going down the drain. 15-20 years ago I loved the idea of the US and the freedom and the "we can do anything attitude". I have no idea how or even why this changed, but being on the outside, I can tell you that it has.
At LEAST the french are only cutting off peoples internet access, however, this might actually lead to somoene having to use a library instead of google, so I see this as a not 100% negative ;)
My major concern with machines/robots/programs becomming intelligent enough to have feelings, is not the programming nightmare, or even the horrifying thought that one day machine will be asked to make choices or critical decisions based on data.
My major concern is that if we entrust machines with emotions, so that they can interpret the data as humans do, then we also have to trust them to act upon those emotions.
Acting on your own free will is what gives you the ability to do harm unto others, deliberately or acidentally. Thus emotions requires judgement, ethics and discipline on behalf of the person (machine ?) acting upon those emotions. This is what we consider good behavior, and acceptable social interaction. These are skills that many humans do not master, so how can we expect machines to be able to behave any better than humans do ?
So I ask; Can we ask MORE of machines than we can comprehend ourselves ? And if we do, will we once again force humankind to deevolve, this time into unthinking, uncaring blobs because now we no longer even have to care, machines will do that for us aswell.
You may kid about various sci-fi commentary. But the reality is that our ability and RESPONSIBILITY to take care of ourselves and eachother has over the last century of evolution and technical revolution become more and more centralized, and moved away from the individual. Everyone expects someone else to take responsibility for everything from local traffic to world hunger. Once we make machines that have free will, will the human free will then also be centralized somewhere ?
I totally agree. You can probably choose peace of mind cheaper than by putting up home security. But where's the fun in THAT ?
What I did was ask myself: What do I want to secure, and how can I go about doing that.
In my neck of the woods, home invasions, natural disasters and similar stuff is exceedingly rare, so my protection revolves mostly around physical access (thieves), crime prevention, identification and ofcourse with the modern day "smart house", also data access.
While my budget wasn't exactly small, it was also not unlimited. So what I did was oder some cheap megapixel IP cameras. They hook up just nice to a simple linux box through a PoE switch. That pretty much takes care of identification. Should anyone like to come near my house, they're on record doing so. Most criminals dont want to get caught, so they avoid places that has cameras. Dont scrimp and buy a dummy. Thieves are NOT dummies, they know the difference.
Crime prevention is a bit harder. The idea here is to deter offenders, and have them choose another target. Cutting down bushes to allow neighbors to see your doors and windows will help a lot. Thieves and other criminals prefer to work unnoticed. Getting a dog helps. As does stuff like a gate or similar access control systems that might deter thieves that pull up with a moving truck and clean you out under the guise of being movers. Also lock up your shed and tools whenever you're not using them. Many thieves use your own tools for breaking into your house. Leaving a crowbar next to your front door is nearly as good as leaving the key in the lock. Alarm systems might work aswell. Some thieves will shy away from them because it's easier to find a place with lesser security. Marking valuables with your name or or identfying marks will generally make thieves less likely to want your stuff, it'll be harder to fence.
Securing physical access is more expensive, and cannot stand alone. Given enough time anyone can circumvent physical access blocks. But using them in conjuction with say, an alarm system that doesnt give a thief enough time to complete his obejctive will normally help. Locking up valuables in a safe is a good idea, but keeping the combination on the fridge door, not so much. Close windows when you're not at home. Use security glass, or film on your windows to prevent entry. Use two or three locks on your doors. Safety doors are also usefull. Hide stuff from plain sight, a thief will not (usually) know where you put your stuff.
Personal safety, also important to some. With an alarm, you can also have an emergency response call button. These are pretty much standard. Keep it near/on you at all times if you're living in a high risk area/situation. Learning self defense is also easy and cheap. While I dont condone the use of weapons against people as a matter of principle, this may be needed in really bad areas. Use the lockdown mode on your alarm system at night or when you're not expecting company. Again, buy a dog. Dogs are easily trained to protect you.
Computer safety: Well, the best firewall I ever saw was 3 feet of air. Good luck hacking a non connected network. Unfortunately, most people dont consider living offline an option. So keep strong passwords, use encryption when possible (with a different password), and change your passwords whenever you suspect someone has gotten a hold of it. Never use the same password for a lot fo serives. In general, hackers will try the "guessed" password on a LOT of services. Also install and keep up to date a firewall, anti spyware and anti virus software. Security through obscurity is also an option. I have yet to see a single virus on say... OS/2.... Downside is, I've also rarely seen any decent software ;)
Also, use threaded internet services. While wireless seems cool, it's merely one more way to hack into your system.
But like I said: Figure out your needs before you decide what's the solution.
I think the "news" is that this time they've been detected in space, where there may be less cnadle flames than there's room for ;)
You were talking about buckyballs in specific, I was talking about fullerene in general, of which the buckyballs is only one of many combinations.
Now I understand the cause of the misunderstanding. Thank you very much for the clarification.
Oh no. A fullerene is a molecule of ATOMS. The C-60 fullerene is merely a molecule consisting of 60 carbon atoms. They (fullerenes) DO exist in forms of lesser (and greater) density. Like C-50 and C-72.
Good chemical engineering indicates that it may be possible in the future to generate some very long chains arteficially. Try reading the wikipage, it's very good at putting things into laymans terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckyballs
Also not an expert. But if we eventually manage to find a molecule that can absorb energy without emitting it again in some form or other, that'd be pretty amazing from a chemistry standpoint. Our current undestanding of energy is that all energy input corresponds to a certain output. That is, energy may change form, but it may not cease to exist. this is generally also how we manage to identify molecules and objects, by measuring how they reflect radiation, or convert it to heat, mass etc.
But certainly a molecule that can absorb radiation without leaking it again, would revolutionize nuclear waste storage and facilities, where currently excess materials are encased in glass, then stainless steel, then put into storage for 6-800 years before the decay is sufficient for the material to be reused as nuclear fuel. Throughout those 6-800 years emission can be detrimetal to your health, a case that ensures 100% absorption of the radiation would be excellent !
That said, I doubt that is the case. I love the idea of it though. And I'm sure that in the future we will have a far better understanding of physics which will hopefully yield such bounties.
Actually, the C-60 has been known to exist (albeit in extremely limited number) in nature on earth. Fullerenes have later been found to exist also in very "short" chains, AFAIK down to like 20-30 atoms.
The real challenge is making stuff like tubing in desired lengths and thickness. Though the ball that is the C-60 is also very intresting, because like some of the molecular medical delivery systems invested recently, you may be able to contain smaller molecules within. This is very helpfull for nano weaponry and medicines, where all you'd need is a molecular glue that will attach (only) to your target, a container (like the buckyball) something within the container, and some sort of trigger, as presumably the fulerenes are very very stable.
I could probably quote myself from the comment I made about 6-12 months ago when someone posted an article about the US wanting to buy more green power. But I wont bother to search for the article, so I'll just say:
THIS IS the problem with the currently renewable energy sources. We do not have control over their output. When they produce too little we need to augment, when they procude too much, we need to siphon the excess. The higher the percentage of renewable energy is being used, the more these extremes will vary.
So putting out an economic incetive (like the energy credit in the article), means that societys requirements and needs will be countered by politics (however well intended) when they're told they're overperforming, because the energy shouldn't go to waste.
The exact same thing happens here (where we can't rely on solar during the day, due to heavy clouding during wintertime where powerconsumption is highest), the windmills overproduce heavily at night, where the cost of energy can actually drop to NEGATIVE (yes, you get paid to buy power at certain times of the night on rare occasions in northern Europe). One of the ways to counter this, is actually by tailoring consumption. So if you have a smart house, and an electric car. NOW is the time your batteries will start charging. This is also the idea behind the "better place" http://www.betterplace.com/ Weather you store in a chemical or natural battery (like a lake on the other side of a dam), or you turn down other sources of power, we WILL need a way to regulate that doesn't involve cutting production of the cleanest powersources.
I admit, there WILL be a cost to the energy infrastructure in the future (or as the article suggest, NOW). And as the energy market goes global, we're not just talking sales from state to state. But that investment should have been obvious from the initial planning of the site. If you can procude 400MW, it's no good if the infrastructure is only made to handle a third of that. That'd be like building a 1 lane freeway.
The devices that are mandatory in most of europe (funnily the home of BP being one of the exceptions, presumably because of the much more shallow waters they're drilling in there), are a little bit more than just the blowout preventer, it's a device which can be triggered in case of emergencies where the wireguided signals from the rig is unable to reach the BOP. They were, as best I can tell, developed after a problem with a platform sinking, same as what happened in the gulf.
Not being an engineer, I'm really at a loss to explain the difference between the BOP installed at BPs site and the ones that are generally being required by most other offshore oil producing countries. But from what the engineers explained to me, these remote controlled shutoff valves would have been able to stop the spill once the pipe had burst, assuming the blowout preventer ofcourse worked (which some people have questioned, since the installed "dead-mans-switch" didn't activate it).
From what I understand, it may have been that such valves were not installed because of the expense of installing them when drilling at these depths, and a furhter combination of BP not being required to use them, and also questioning of their effectiveness at these depths.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html has some of the best graphics detailing the idea of the remote controlled switch. Again, the assumption being that the BOP is actually functioning. And from what I can understand, replacing or repairing a defective BOP IS possible.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news.... But oil cleanup and spill prevention has existed outside the US for decades. Thing is that the US offers a "bounty" on contaminated SEAWATER, not on reclaimed oil. So this technology has been of little intrest in the country where it was born. And at the same time, because countries like Norway, Denmark, the UK and many others are so adept at drilling at sea, they ofcourse have all reasearched in spill cleanup and even prevention. For instance, it's the LAW to equip all wells with a remote controllable shutoff valve if you want to drill in the north sea. A device which could easily have prevented the BP spill, but wasn't used, because it wasn't a requirement.
Similarly, noone in their right mind would have used chemicals in the case of the BP spill, simply because collecting the oil afloat is much simpler than if you weigh it down where you can't reclaim it, and it affects the eco system much more profoundly.
That said, if the existance of these centrifuges makes the US more practical in their approach to spill clean up and prevention, I'm all for it. And if they can supplement or improove on existing technology I dont really care who funded their development. It could have been Mickey Mouse as long as the technology gets to make a difference, instead of being buried.
I dont know. I would guess that it has to do with what they can make work in a machine that's only supposed to cost some hundred $. I'm guessing it's a way to cut costs not having to pay for a license to read/write to NTFS devices. Unless MS is starting to give away those licenses for free now ?
And what makes you think that the Kiosk software can read a NTFS USB drive ?
While I cannot speak for the specific types of machines mentioned in the article, I DO know that a lot of the local machines over here are using some funky Linux flavor (presumably to keep costs down), running off flash ROM. And they generally expect you to deliver the data in a FAT32 partition if you provide a USB drive.
Then again, if the software is Linux, Then there usually isn't that much of a problem with viruses hopping from one device to the next, I'd wager.
You want someone to beat to the punch ?
Go for the indians. EXACTLY to show that they're capable of every bit as much technology and engineering as a US based company, they have ISRO (feel free to google it). They've got lunar probes launched already. Are currently fielding a solid fuel rocket (so they may well be the first to reach Mars), as well as some nifty ideas on how to continue the human space flight programme. ISRO spends billions of dollars on their space programme, and gets 5-10 times as much for the money, because they generally contract locally.
When Kennedy stood up to the Russians when he said "we do this not because it's easy", he also created jobs and techonological advances for AMERICANS (and the rest of the world also, but primarily for his own people). This is the knowledge and legacy that Chineese and Indians are now usurping.
I do agree that ADDITIONAL spending beyond that which was originally budgetted might be frivolous currently, due to the current financial environment. However, dismantling the programme entirely will be like pissing your pants when you're cold. It may feel nice NOW, but you're going to regret it later.
I agree with many aspects of what you say. I too have been the unwitting recipient of pirated items from ebay and even once from amazon too. Unfortunately.
Also, you have to consider the fact that many countries actually ALLOW for a copy to be made (but not sold) of the stuff you buy. Many artists, and IP holders recignize that fact, and I even remember a couple of musicians getting pissed that their fans got sued for piracy, when in fact they felt that it was the people profiting from the piracy that should be punished, not the ones who ended up with the copies. In fact many DVDs and music today even comes with a "free digital copy". So times they are a changing.
As for the lazy bastards; I can say that in many places in europe we now have a (nearly) free, legal streaming service for music. For a very low price (about the cost of a single CD pr month) you can listen to and stream as much music as you like, the larger ISPs even include the subscription when you buy internet access (!). Negotiations are on the way for TV, movies and games too. Sorta like the online equivalent of movie rentals. Given everyones legal access to media, there's no need for expensive copy protection, or enforcement. And customers have access to all the media they want without having to resort to alternate methods to obtain it. So I think that "classic" piracy is a thing of the past pretty soon. It's just a matter of the IP holders moving their income stream from the storefront to the subscriptions or distribution services, and ensuring that everyone has access. But I'm sure someone will get pissed about their cut being too small (as usual).
My major concern is that everyone (today) seems to focus squarely on "lost revenues", or "piracy" without considering the fact that modern media needs to be available in modern formats. I'm fairly certain that the guys selling taped music or vinyl isn't wondering what happened to their market any longer. People posting reports like the one mentioned in the article are just showing that they live in the past, IMO. A LOT of people I know haven't bothered to buy a Blu-ray player, because currently more and more movies become available online. Owning your personal copy may be a thing of the past soon enough. I'm certain theis trend will eventually transcend all types of media and entertainment.
While I dont share your views on the technology. I do agree that this is expected behavior from a hybrid drive. I have yet to see a hybrid drive that actually does perform significantly better than a normal drive. And that just isn't happening yet.
I'm uncertain if this is because of a poor design, bad queueing, or other issues. But the very BEST hybrid I've seen performs only a couple of percent better than a normal drive, and then not even across the board, but only in specific tests.
Hybrid drives have a long way to go before they become my first choice. But at least you now have an entry level pricing on some of them, which is more than I can say for the full SSDs.
And exactly what services did your ISP provide ? I doubt they happen to have their own dedicated newsserver, and if they did, kudos to them. Most ISPs back then would provide you with a shared homepage server, a mail service, and IP access to the internet. If you were lucky.
The INTERNET was free, some places however you might have to pay for access to it. You still do today. The difference being today, hardly a single page, server or service goes up without someone profiting from it. Even good old /. has banners and adds.
I totally agree.
While I haven't read the specifics of the patents themselves, I have read the entire suit MS is pulling.
"hey, they're using a networked service, we have patent for that".
"hey, they're using cookies, we have a patent for that".
"hey, they're using a browser based manu system, we have a patent for that"
And it just goes on like that. And two of the infringing patents are even identical, presumably just a version update seeing as how it's MS.
I dont care if it's MS or anyone else. This type of blanket copyright is simply killing innovation. Yes, you have a right to your code, to a specific engineering technology, or even to a specific chemical or physical product you have created, or even the process of creating said object. But not to an idea. That would be like me copyrighting the idea of "transforming one gasseous substance into another and through a chemical process using the removed atoms for fueling an organic entity" Or simply put: Breathing. Licensing anyone ?
Agreed. I love(d) the days of the newsgroup.
But in all fairness, back then the internet was totally free. And everyone pretty much put up servers for altruistic, informational, educational or other similar non profit purposes. Today with the current economic climate and focus on spending policies, everyone is cutting down. And there just really isn't a viable business model for usenet that I can think of (not that I'm a doctorate in economy, but still).
So I guess Usenet now just goes the way of Gopher and becomes once again a prduct of love and devotion, rather than business. I kinda like usenet that way, so I dont really mind.
Does that make me a geek now ? ;)
While I appreaciate the links and information. I even more appreaciate the fact that someone finally said what as needed (and was heard).
As a patentholder (no, hardware, not software), I can vouch for the fact that a centralized european patent office is sorely needed. Currently, getting a patent in all of europe depends on first finding a patent office that WILL grant you the patent (which can be hard because most of 'em sit on their arse saying; "Ee dont under stand this technology, it's new to us". Yeah morons, ofcourse it's new, otherwise I wouldn't be patenting it, now would I ?), and then running around to every OTHER patent office in europe and saying "But THEY already gave me the patent rights".
And this is not only difficult, but also expensive and an entry barrier for new technology movers and inventors.
Knowing how windmills (and in particular windfarms) work, I wonder how Texans have solved the issue of overproduction ? I mean any sucker can buy a few hundred windmills from Vestas. But this type of energy is not "on demand" capable, like nuclear, coal og oil based electrical production is. Even hydropower can be scaled and "stored" up to a point.
When you get a huge terrawatt windfarm, you NEED to be able to harness (and use) all of that energy, even at night, and that means either inefficient storage, or you have to close down on other production facilities. And that costs money too.
Yes, by NOT burning oil for electricity we're keeping a green carbon footprint, but the plants producing the power still needs manning, and shutdown/startup isn't exactly easy (or cheap) in many cases. In my own home I can hook up a couple of batteries, but I suspect it's a lot more difficult on this large a scale. Anyone have a clue ? Or is this just another political move ?
Well, as most companies that have to build a new datacenter will tell you. It's cheaper to generate heat than cold. So I'd go for cold containment. Generally speaking most companies do AIM to put their new datacenters as close to the north pole as possible simply because it's cheaper to use outside air that's natually cold. That puts countries like Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland in high demand for datacenters (end technicians to staff them). If the US didn't have rediculous data laws, Alska might also be ideal.
In our new datacenter we're even using the excess heating from the servers to heat the offices ontop of the giant basements below. This sort of setup is ideal for outside temperatures that generally range below the normal cooling needs of a server (or several). But in any event there's still a huge bill to pay for moving the air back and forth, so containment is definately still an issue, as is the size of the pipes when you have say... 10MW of electricity going into your servers and quite a lot of that energy coming back out as heat ;)
Admittedly, having internet access in your car is "nice" on occasion.
However, The article isn't about internet access, but about a mobile hotspot. Essentially connecting a wireless router to a wireless internetconnection (3G, UMTS, sattelite, whatever).
I believe this is the "why" the original poster is asking. Because if you have a wireless internet connection already..... Why would you WANT to turn it into a hotspot ? Exactly how often do you feel the need for attaching 2 or more computers to the internet while driving your car ? I'd wager not very often.
Now for busses, public transportation (we already have that here in Denmark), trams, etc. I can perfectly understand the need. But with majority of carmiles driven being with only a single occupant in the car, even the tought of a personal mobile hotspot seems rediculous.
Except for with all the viacom employees that are trying to upload their stuff