If Limewire is not going to allow any copyrighted content on the network, then there will be absolutely no content on the network, At least in the U.S., all content is copyrighted by the originator the moment it is produced. When you doodle on a napkin, that is copyrighted.
They never had a "good interview". Granted, they frequently had some great interviewees, but inevitably the interviewers would talk over and interrupt the guest and just spout their own opinion instead.
Re:rio was not the first, just a cheap me too comp
on
Rio Brand Closes Doors
·
· Score: 1
"...usb (there was no firewire or usb 2 back then)..."
There most certainly was firewire "back then". Firewire was invented in the 80s and IEEE certified it as a standard in 1995.
I was debunking the poor logic, inappropriate assumptions and overall lack of fundamental understanding held by these researchers. After debunking the first four points, I changed gears. I'm tired of all these marketing bullshit artists trying to track my every page view and metric on what I do at their site. I'm especially tired of having to manage cookies and delete them on a regular basis. Sure each site only sends 1-10 cookies of a few bytes each, but that starts to add up when you don't stick to your main sites.
I think we need an open source project that will collaboratively "surf" web sites. The collaboration will mean that site cookies will be tossed in to a publicly accessible pool and shared amongst the workers. The pool might contain thousands of cookies for each site. Workers will get a site and a cookie from the main server and start surfing. The same cookie will be given out to many workers at the same time. My worker might hit NYT now and a machine in New Zealand might hit that same site with the same cookie just a few minutes later. The actual time delay is irrelevant, it's the sharing of the cookies and "co-ordinated attack" that's the key here.
The workers will of course present random, but valid client IDs to the sites. Some logic also needs to detect that cookie has been used too often and should be discarded. On command a client should access a site with no cookie and instead retrieve a new one. The rate and level of cookie sharing will vary so as to generate noise in any of the standard web metrics algorithms in use.
I don't think the workers will even need to accept the entire page or images from the page. Log-files from web servers only write information about requests, not about completions. What that suggests is that bandwidth usage will be minimal.
Maybe if we can generate enough noise these morons will stop trying to come up with more useless ways to invade our privacy and track our every on-line move. Once the advertisers start seeing their pay-outs go through the roof they may ask questions about what's going on.
I'm no privacy nut, but I wouldn't stand for being tracked as I walk around all day; I've no great desire to accept it as I "walk" around the 'net either.
Electric cars that I know of must keep the battery packs cool. To do that there is a full-on cooling system with a compressor and fans solely for that task. That system must run continuously in some regions to ensure the batteries stay within their operating temperature range. These vehicles do in fact waste energy when sitting still. Plus, batteries discharge themselves when idle. The gas in my tank doesn't just disappear if I leave my car parked for a week, and except for the coldest climates I don't have to leave my engine running to keep it warm enough to operate.
I've never seen a production electric vehicle that didn't have a transmission. At a minimum they have reverse, neutral and park settings for the automatic models.
On the other side of the coin, in an electric you have to maintain the aux heat system (in colder climates), the charging system, inverter and motor brushes. Electric vehicles are not panacea of lower operating costs you present. If an electric vehicle is in a wreck, you have to have all the batteries inspected ensure you didn't break or short a cell in any of the batteries.
As demand increases, prices will actually fall. I know quite a few economics professors who would fail you for that statement.
ICE in cars could in fact achieve 30% or even higher efficiencies. The issue is that in America the manufacturers put all the money in to technology for making the cars more powerful. If we took the same technology and kept making the engine displacements smaller, performance could stay level and fuel efficiency would go through the roof. Alas, Congress and the President have little to no interest in raising the CAFE standards to force such changes. For comparison: Euro and Asian small engines easily put out over 100hp per liter of displacement. Using that same technology a Chevy Aveo with 103hp would need only a 1 liter engine, but Chevy uses a 1.6 liter engine to achieve the 103hp level of performance making the Euro engines 55% more efficient than the Chevy's. If that added efficiency translates directly to MPG, then the Aveo could get 55MPG with a 100hp 1 liter engine, and I would argue that such a vehicle could get along quite nicely with a 750cc engine. There's no real need for all that excess power.
All that aside, I think the best overall idea at the moment is biodiesel. Grow corn, soybeans, safflower, rapeseed, etc. Extract the oils and burn it in cars. Net carbon load=0, many useful byproducts (glycerine for example), completely renewable energy source, solar collection mechanism, uses the vast network for petroleum distribution we're all used to, traffic jams smell like popcorn instead of gasoline.
Yup, that's the ticket to cleaner air and reduced dependence on foreign oil: smaller biodiesel engines.
As gasoline prices rise, more people will adopt hybrid or pure electric vehicles. The cars that re-charge from an electric wall outlet will cause electricity demand to increase, causing electrical prices to rise. The cars that re-charge their own batteries aren't any cheaper in the long run when you have to replace the batteries or pay 3x the "normal" labor rate to have some certified tech work on the complex drivetrain.
Fossil fuel is a zero sum game, you can't lower fuel costs by switching where you burn the fuel.
What we need is for people to fundamentally re-think how they use their cars. Ex: I live in a gated community. There is a grammar school about 3/4 of a mile away and a high-school bus stop at the gate. Parents drive to the grammar school to drop-off and pick-up their kids. Three parents living in adjacent houses will each get in their SUV to burn a gallon of fuel each to fetch the kids. What's even more insane is the parents that drive from inside the community, wait at the gate (with engine running) to pick up the high-shoolers from the bus stop and drive them the 1/4 mile back to the house. THAT is the stupidity that's driving up fuel demand and prices and polluting the air. It's also the reason that 40% of school aged kids are clinically overweight; they get driven everywhere.
It's a problem with the markup/code on the page. It fails the W3 verification tests. Go to validator.w3.org and type in the start.com/3/ address. It does not parse at XHTML 1.0 and produces quite a number of errors and warnings.
In this case they didn't just massage the frequency response by lowing it 44x, they also time-compressed the sample such that the 73 seconds we hear spans 27 minutes of real-time recording, about a 25x increase. So neither the frequencies, nor the rate of tonal change is accurate.
Once government has taken a power from the people it is never returned except by force. Any government that attempts to restrain the people inevitably fails.
I can't tell you that. To do so would be a violation of the Patriot Act and I could be imprisoned as a terrorist sympathizer, indefinitely without trial. If fact my mentioning this may already be a violation.
PV panels are far more efficient at producing usable energy than plants are. PV panels produce 0.00 grams of "toxic hazards for landfills". All of the materials that make up PV cells are extracted from the Earth. If it comes out of the Earth, putting it back in the Earth later can't possible be a bad thing.
True, plants produce oxygen; they also produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. While the net effect is they take in more CO2 than they exhaust, they also put out more water vapor than they take in. Water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas. Surely you would want to minimize the output of water vapor if you believe in global warming.
I know how much power A/C units draw. I live in Mesa, AZ where the daily high temperatures over the past two months have averaged about 110F and I have to run both of my 4 ton units to cool the house to livable temperatures. I've looked at the cost and benefits of PV cells. I'd put them up in a heartbeat if they had an ROI of less than 10 years, but the economies of scale haven't kicked in yet. But certainly PV cells would be cheaper than burying my home in soil and irrigating to promote plant growth.
Sure building underground is a great idea. I wish most of the box stores in the Phoenix metro area were underground, it'd mean lower costs for goods since you could use the "roof" for parking and the cooling load would be dramatically reduced. As long as your already digging to put the building underground, using geothermal/groundwater based HVAC units reduces operating costs even further.
Or rioters will learn to all start throwing things at it in attempt to break the emitter before it's turned on.
If this thing truly is emitting microwaves, then a water spray or mist between the crowd and emitter would absorb and disperse the energy. Seems one protester with a fire hose could take on such a machine. Tossing grease/fat at the emitter could also cause some nasty effects to the operating personnel.
Another good plan is to cover an above-ground structure's sun exposed surfaces with photovoltaic panels. Arrange the panels such that there is an air gap between the panels and the structure. The panels keep the building from heating up and provide electricity to off-set grid power usage.
If you've had your hands on a peltier, you've probably sandwiched the thing between two heat sinks and two fans. One side is a heater, the other is a cooler. This is the exact method of operation of those in-car cooler/heater boxes you plug in to the cigarette lighter. These kids are simply scaling the idea up; instead of cooling a box in the car they're cooling the car. There is nothing novel or innovative about this.
I think what's being referred to is the heat the unit moves vs the heat it generates. Refrigerant based units rely on phase change of matter (gas to liquid to gas...) which requires the absorption and release of tremendous amounts of energy. The poster was not trying to say that the compressor was not wasting any energy as heat/noise/vibration. If I recall my physics even somewhat correctly, the amount of energy it takes to convert a gram of water at 32F from solid to liquid state is 80 calories. That same amount of energy will then increase that same gram of water from 32F to 176F.
VASCAR is not anything like an odometer really. It's a system where the police measure your travel time between two known points of a known distance apart. They then simply divide the distance by your time and arrive at your speed. The spotters are usually in aircraft and the known distances are ticked off on the side of the road in large white lines painted perpendicular to traffic flow. 1/4 mile in 10 seconds = 75mph.
If the byproduct of that reaction truly is Sodium Hydroxide (lye), then a plant producing hydrogen in his manner could be a producer of refined biodiesel also. One of the more popular recipes for making biodiesel relies on lye and methanol to precipitate out the fatty solids from waste vegetable oil.
Such a plant cold produce hydrogen and biodiesel fuels along with some other useful byproducts, such as glycerine.
If later research discredits a study, then the system works. Published peer reviewed studies put out an idea, others get to read that idea and respond with other studies or facts.
Science gets things wrong from time to time for a whole host of reasons from accidental to intentional manipulation of data. The review process ensures that we fix the errors and get it all right in the end.
In the 70s and 80s some studies showed we were entering another ice age. In the 90s and 00s some studies show we are in a run-away green-house warming age. I don't think either of them are right.
i made that same argument on the comments section of AppleInsider.
The article takes a lot of words to tell us absolutely nothing new, yet it's creating quite a bit of hype.
Call me when we have benchmarks of major apps doing REAL work (encoding video, rendering animations, performing massive math calculations) on the x86 and the PPC platforms.
My guess is that Apple will squish any developer that publishes such numbers sine I suspect that the current dual PowerMac line will dwarf the performance of the developer box.
Slashdot Mirror
If Limewire is not going to allow any copyrighted content on the network, then there will be absolutely no content on the network, At least in the U.S., all content is copyrighted by the originator the moment it is produced. When you doodle on a napkin, that is copyrighted.
They never had a "good interview". Granted, they frequently had some great interviewees, but inevitably the interviewers would talk over and interrupt the guest and just spout their own opinion instead.
"...usb (there was no firewire or usb 2 back then)..."
There most certainly was firewire "back then". Firewire was invented in the 80s and IEEE certified it as a standard in 1995.
I was debunking the poor logic, inappropriate assumptions and overall lack of fundamental understanding held by these researchers. After debunking the first four points, I changed gears. I'm tired of all these marketing bullshit artists trying to track my every page view and metric on what I do at their site. I'm especially tired of having to manage cookies and delete them on a regular basis. Sure each site only sends 1-10 cookies of a few bytes each, but that starts to add up when you don't stick to your main sites.
I think we need an open source project that will collaboratively "surf" web sites. The collaboration will mean that site cookies will be tossed in to a publicly accessible pool and shared amongst the workers. The pool might contain thousands of cookies for each site. Workers will get a site and a cookie from the main server and start surfing. The same cookie will be given out to many workers at the same time. My worker might hit NYT now and a machine in New Zealand might hit that same site with the same cookie just a few minutes later. The actual time delay is irrelevant, it's the sharing of the cookies and "co-ordinated attack" that's the key here.
The workers will of course present random, but valid client IDs to the sites. Some logic also needs to detect that cookie has been used too often and should be discarded. On command a client should access a site with no cookie and instead retrieve a new one. The rate and level of cookie sharing will vary so as to generate noise in any of the standard web metrics algorithms in use.
I don't think the workers will even need to accept the entire page or images from the page. Log-files from web servers only write information about requests, not about completions. What that suggests is that bandwidth usage will be minimal.
Maybe if we can generate enough noise these morons will stop trying to come up with more useless ways to invade our privacy and track our every on-line move. Once the advertisers start seeing their pay-outs go through the roof they may ask questions about what's going on.
I'm no privacy nut, but I wouldn't stand for being tracked as I walk around all day; I've no great desire to accept it as I "walk" around the 'net either.
Yup.
Apple is a monopoly in the Apple market.
I nominate that for the "dumb-ass statement of the month" award.
No.
Microsoft has no ownership or corporate control of Apple.
Electric cars that I know of must keep the battery packs cool. To do that there is a full-on cooling system with a compressor and fans solely for that task. That system must run continuously in some regions to ensure the batteries stay within their operating temperature range. These vehicles do in fact waste energy when sitting still. Plus, batteries discharge themselves when idle. The gas in my tank doesn't just disappear if I leave my car parked for a week, and except for the coldest climates I don't have to leave my engine running to keep it warm enough to operate.
I've never seen a production electric vehicle that didn't have a transmission. At a minimum they have reverse, neutral and park settings for the automatic models.
On the other side of the coin, in an electric you have to maintain the aux heat system (in colder climates), the charging system, inverter and motor brushes. Electric vehicles are not panacea of lower operating costs you present. If an electric vehicle is in a wreck, you have to have all the batteries inspected ensure you didn't break or short a cell in any of the batteries.
As demand increases, prices will actually fall.
I know quite a few economics professors who would fail you for that statement.
ICE in cars could in fact achieve 30% or even higher efficiencies. The issue is that in America the manufacturers put all the money in to technology for making the cars more powerful. If we took the same technology and kept making the engine displacements smaller, performance could stay level and fuel efficiency would go through the roof. Alas, Congress and the President have little to no interest in raising the CAFE standards to force such changes.
For comparison: Euro and Asian small engines easily put out over 100hp per liter of displacement. Using that same technology a Chevy Aveo with 103hp would need only a 1 liter engine, but Chevy uses a 1.6 liter engine to achieve the 103hp level of performance making the Euro engines 55% more efficient than the Chevy's.
If that added efficiency translates directly to MPG, then the Aveo could get 55MPG with a 100hp 1 liter engine, and I would argue that such a vehicle could get along quite nicely with a 750cc engine. There's no real need for all that excess power.
All that aside, I think the best overall idea at the moment is biodiesel. Grow corn, soybeans, safflower, rapeseed, etc. Extract the oils and burn it in cars. Net carbon load=0, many useful byproducts (glycerine for example), completely renewable energy source, solar collection mechanism, uses the vast network for petroleum distribution we're all used to, traffic jams smell like popcorn instead of gasoline.
Yup, that's the ticket to cleaner air and reduced dependence on foreign oil: smaller biodiesel engines.
As gasoline prices rise, more people will adopt hybrid or pure electric vehicles. The cars that re-charge from an electric wall outlet will cause electricity demand to increase, causing electrical prices to rise. The cars that re-charge their own batteries aren't any cheaper in the long run when you have to replace the batteries or pay 3x the "normal" labor rate to have some certified tech work on the complex drivetrain.
Fossil fuel is a zero sum game, you can't lower fuel costs by switching where you burn the fuel.
What we need is for people to fundamentally re-think how they use their cars.
Ex: I live in a gated community. There is a grammar school about 3/4 of a mile away and a high-school bus stop at the gate.
Parents drive to the grammar school to drop-off and pick-up their kids. Three parents living in adjacent houses will each get in their SUV to burn a gallon of fuel each to fetch the kids. What's even more insane is the parents that drive from inside the community, wait at the gate (with engine running) to pick up the high-shoolers from the bus stop and drive them the 1/4 mile back to the house.
THAT is the stupidity that's driving up fuel demand and prices and polluting the air. It's also the reason that 40% of school aged kids are clinically overweight; they get driven everywhere.
"Thats why fuel cells only produce H20 as a waste product."
And heat, lots of heat.
Let's expand on that idea a little and state more simply:
A right on your part does not constitute an obligation on my part.
This simple idea applies to all the rights you hold under the U.S. Constitution, enumerated or not and leads to many conflicts.
It's a problem with the markup/code on the page. It fails the W3 verification tests. Go to validator.w3.org and type in the start.com/3/ address. It does not parse at XHTML 1.0 and produces quite a number of errors and warnings.
In this case they didn't just massage the frequency response by lowing it 44x, they also time-compressed the sample such that the 73 seconds we hear spans 27 minutes of real-time recording, about a 25x increase.
So neither the frequencies, nor the rate of tonal change is accurate.
Once government has taken a power from the people it is never returned except by force. Any government that attempts to restrain the people inevitably fails.
I can't tell you that. To do so would be a violation of the Patriot Act and I could be imprisoned as a terrorist sympathizer, indefinitely without trial. If fact my mentioning this may already be a violation.
PV panels are far more efficient at producing usable energy than plants are. PV panels produce 0.00 grams of "toxic hazards for landfills". All of the materials that make up PV cells are extracted from the Earth. If it comes out of the Earth, putting it back in the Earth later can't possible be a bad thing.
True, plants produce oxygen; they also produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. While the net effect is they take in more CO2 than they exhaust, they also put out more water vapor than they take in. Water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas. Surely you would want to minimize the output of water vapor if you believe in global warming.
I know how much power A/C units draw. I live in Mesa, AZ where the daily high temperatures over the past two months have averaged about 110F and I have to run both of my 4 ton units to cool the house to livable temperatures. I've looked at the cost and benefits of PV cells. I'd put them up in a heartbeat if they had an ROI of less than 10 years, but the economies of scale haven't kicked in yet. But certainly PV cells would be cheaper than burying my home in soil and irrigating to promote plant growth.
Sure building underground is a great idea. I wish most of the box stores in the Phoenix metro area were underground, it'd mean lower costs for goods since you could use the "roof" for parking and the cooling load would be dramatically reduced. As long as your already digging to put the building underground, using geothermal/groundwater based HVAC units reduces operating costs even further.
Or rioters will learn to all start throwing things at it in attempt to break the emitter before it's turned on.
If this thing truly is emitting microwaves, then a water spray or mist between the crowd and emitter would absorb and disperse the energy. Seems one protester with a fire hose could take on such a machine. Tossing grease/fat at the emitter could also cause some nasty effects to the operating personnel.
Umph. Yup. That's why the police use the VASCAR computer instead of their heads to perform the calculation.
Another good plan is to cover an above-ground structure's sun exposed surfaces with photovoltaic panels. Arrange the panels such that there is an air gap between the panels and the structure. The panels keep the building from heating up and provide electricity to off-set grid power usage.
If you've had your hands on a peltier, you've probably sandwiched the thing between two heat sinks and two fans. One side is a heater, the other is a cooler. This is the exact method of operation of those in-car cooler/heater boxes you plug in to the cigarette lighter. These kids are simply scaling the idea up; instead of cooling a box in the car they're cooling the car.
There is nothing novel or innovative about this.
I think what's being referred to is the heat the unit moves vs the heat it generates. Refrigerant based units rely on phase change of matter (gas to liquid to gas...) which requires the absorption and release of tremendous amounts of energy. The poster was not trying to say that the compressor was not wasting any energy as heat/noise/vibration.
If I recall my physics even somewhat correctly, the amount of energy it takes to convert a gram of water at 32F from solid to liquid state is 80 calories. That same amount of energy will then increase that same gram of water from 32F to 176F.
VASCAR is not anything like an odometer really. It's a system where the police measure your travel time between two known points of a known distance apart. They then simply divide the distance by your time and arrive at your speed.
The spotters are usually in aircraft and the known distances are ticked off on the side of the road in large white lines painted perpendicular to traffic flow. 1/4 mile in 10 seconds = 75mph.
If the byproduct of that reaction truly is Sodium Hydroxide (lye), then a plant producing hydrogen in his manner could be a producer of refined biodiesel also. One of the more popular recipes for making biodiesel relies on lye and methanol to precipitate out the fatty solids from waste vegetable oil.
Such a plant cold produce hydrogen and biodiesel fuels along with some other useful byproducts, such as glycerine.
If later research discredits a study, then the system works. Published peer reviewed studies put out an idea, others get to read that idea and respond with other studies or facts.
Science gets things wrong from time to time for a whole host of reasons from accidental to intentional manipulation of data. The review process ensures that we fix the errors and get it all right in the end.
In the 70s and 80s some studies showed we were entering another ice age. In the 90s and 00s some studies show we are in a run-away green-house warming age. I don't think either of them are right.
i made that same argument on the comments section of AppleInsider.
The article takes a lot of words to tell us absolutely nothing new, yet it's creating quite a bit of hype.
Call me when we have benchmarks of major apps doing REAL work (encoding video, rendering animations, performing massive math calculations) on the x86 and the PPC platforms.
My guess is that Apple will squish any developer that publishes such numbers sine I suspect that the current dual PowerMac line will dwarf the performance of the developer box.