I realize that the software probably shouldn't have disabled UAC out of the box without at least informing the user, but having worked on some out-of-process COM applications (yes, legacy) in Windows Vista/7/8/10, UAC can be extremely frustrating. The biggest issue is that having UAC on creates a different user context between user and admin. If I execute a program as myself with admin privileges, it is not exactly the same as executing the program as myself without admin privileges.
For example, if your user with admin priveleges creates a COM component, that component may not be able to be accessed by a non-admin context even though your user may be in the local administrators group, DCOM Users group, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if LG ran into a COM issue with Windows and decided to make the program for reliable for the user by disabling UAC instead of resolving the problem in a different way.
Wow, so insightful. I never thought to "...destroy the current internet and rebuild it -- but without all the bullshit." Praise our savior who will save us from websites that cannot compel you to visit them.
Where can I sign up for your newsletter? I expect you will need my mailing address since you predict that "half of humanity" (including the half that lives in poor conditions that may not have any experience with the internet?) may have "...decided that the internet just isn't worth it."
So what's the answer? And don't put it on "brilliant engineering minds" to figure something out for you. Tell us what a good, economical, and environmentally sound option should be.
1. Renewables? A massive decrease in the cost of petroleum does not make the economics of renewables, especially solar, more attractive. 2. Nuclear? Good luck convincing regulatory bodies, the population, and environmentalists that's the best way to go. Besides, nuclear waste is a real problem, and we are in the perpetual state of "a few years more" to achieving the fast breeder reactors. 3. Fusion? Not technically possible right now, but you never know, maybe with "another 10 years" and we'll have it. 4. Force demand to be lower by using quotas or raising electricity price artificially? Yay, big government regulation causing dramatic changes in how people will live their lives. I'm sure everyone will just love being told to stop using heaters in the winter and air conditioners in the summer. 5. Carbon tax? Yay, big government regulation. Guess who profits from "carbon exchanges?" Goldman Sachs. 6. Kill off tons of people thereby reducing energy demand? Go for it, Mr. Eugenics. Just remember, killing people also takes energy expenditure in one way or another.
I disagree with some of the pretenses here primarily that higher level math directly equates with a better performing student. I went to grad school for chemical engineering with 1/3 US students and 2/3 foreign all from China and India, and I will agree that their skills when it came to even engineering math (e.g. calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, numerical analysis) all surpassed what I and other domestic students knew.
But I think this is because of a fundamental difference in evaluating what problems are important. During my undergrad, memorization for a test was thought to be a pointless task and not worth doing (because in the real world, you can use Google, textbooks, whatever you want to accomplish the goal). Tests were structured to require extra thinking, problems could be formulated in a completely different way than found in the homework, or worse, the questions could nigh-unsolvable and require the student to explain how they would go about solving it if they weren't able to. However, in grad school, most of my tests relied on memorization of certain fundamentals and derivation methodologies to succeed. Guess which group performed better on that?
But what about skills that are not so easy testable? Like communication? Or thinking about a problem outside the box and not approaching it from the exact same way as everyone else? Many modern engineering problems are not just solved by use of complex mathematics; formulation of a problem, simplifying the problem where appropriate, solution methodologies, thinking about time constraints, monetary concerns, interactions with less technical people, and communication of results are all part of my daily job. Solving a problem using personal knowledge of PDE's may help occasionally, but knowing how to use tools when appropriate and knowing how to communicate is worth far more ultimately.
The idea that we're "soon" to have invisibility cloaks that are both omni-directional *and* handle visible light is an unfounded one. True, maybe the underlying foundations are set well and the science is understood. But here's the issue: metamaterials ("invisibility cloaks" as a rule, fall into this category since they're properties are determined by the structure of the materials - not the material itself) have specific patterns in the structure. Microwave radiation has a wavelength between 1 mm and 1 m. Visible light has a wavelength of 390 to 750 nm. We are talking about four orders of magnitude.
The structure of the metamaterial needed to handle visible light is going to be out of our reach for quite some time until we can design a better way of handling structural details on the nanoscale and beyond (right now, the best methods are self assembled, and those methods usually aren't good for the massive complexity you'd desire).
And what favors would those be to Saudi Aramco or Gazprom? I won't deny that the US has its fair share of corruption, but to say that our government goes out of its way to throw favors at foreign companies just because they are in a "powerful industry" seems like a long shot to me.
If you can prove it on either one of those two *huge* companies getting favors from the federal government, I'll buy it. I'll admit that I was wrong and apologize for being so misguided.
Haha, so they come to the US to ask for help about acidizing wells, new drilling methodologies, and completions... Just because we are a large market for it?
You know what? Let's say you're right. I hope in the future, when you are trying to figure out how to start up a very productive farm, you mosey your way on over to China and get their help on all the best techniques (because, of course, they are the largest market for food in the world). You mind as well go over there for all your electronics needs as well. Heck, I bet you can't wait to pick up the new Huawei smartphone. I mean, they have to be the best in the world since they're the largest market, right?
Just another alarmist that doesn't know what the heck is he talking about.
True, the patent system for software is completely hosed up. But to say, "Innovation is dead in this country," is just you talking out of your ass.
There are plenty of companies in many other facets of science and engineering that are doing just fine by staying in the states (not to mention having some of the best schools in the world plus lots of very good ones). As an example, why do international companies in the petroleum industry routinely do business in the states? Oh wait, is it because innovation is dead? No, it's because we have some of the very best technology and great minds to advise companies all over the world.
"...living 'against the clock' may be a factor contributing to the epidemic of obesity..."
You have to be kidding me. So they found a correlation? Yippie. I can find the correlation between number and pirates and global warming. Means nothing.
What's worse is that they don't even try to explain what's really going on here. Is it that metabolism is slower when things are out of order from circadian rhythm? Where are the citations for that suggestion? Is it actually a true case of causation with experimental evidence in biochemistry, or more regressions and "it looks this way, but we have no idea so here's a paper on it anyway" type of thing?
Or is it so much more simple? Maybe like... People are eating more calories than they burn?! No way! Common sense just can't come into play ever. Maybe people feel more hungry with less sleep! Oh goodness! Let's do a double regression on chronotypes and amount of sleep so that we can submit another paper and get more funding!
This argument seems analogous to "graphics in games are not photorealistic therefore I am not immersed as much as I wish therefore it's not worth my time to enjoy the game."
I would love to hear your reason as to why you hate having choices yanked out of you in a limited game. I mean, do you honestly expect an "interactive fiction" where you can make any decision that you possibly could want? Golly what if someone is a pacifist and doesn't want to go blow up virtual aliens? What if someone wants to be a psycho and kill all major characters? Do you expect the game makers to have thought of every stupid thing a person could want to do and develop an individual story with voice overs and endings to all?
Limited time. Limited money. Limited technology. There is no way to feasibly construct some game that is both a sandbox (allowing you to do whatever you feel like) and story driven (to actually be told a unique story) at the same time given our current abilities in game making. Either you have your expectations so high it's not even funny, or you are going to cite some shitty 8-bit game of "amazingness" that is 100 times better than anything today because it "let you do anything you wanted."
Haha, of course, I forgot that they're already supposedly using Zinc oxide as the original reactant. My foolish mistake. Still, I wish I could find the academic paper to get a better idea than some news report.
I have tried searching Web of Knowledge and Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and I can't find any articles written by Koepf relating to hydrogen, solar, or zinc. I can also find no papers from the advisers dealing with this subject matter. It is entirely possible that they just haven't published anything on this yet, but that seems very sketchy to get press for something that has not yet been published... Hard to say. Anyone else have any luck with finding articles?
Also, zinc oxide is produced as a by product, so what we're seeing is something like...
Zn+H2O -> ZnO + H2
The real question is how to regenerate pure zinc from its oxide. If this technology can go somewhere, producing zinc from ZnO shouldn't require any external energy input (or minimal, if any). It is also entirely possible to just ignore reforming zinc oxide back into zinc, and they probably will at first. I just don't think splitting an oxide salt will be so easy only using high temperatures. Electrochemistry may help, but again, if the net energy gain of this whole process is too low, then it's unlikely to be picked up. Still pretty cool stuff though.
I'm sorry, but you have to be kidding me. I may not be a developer by trade, but from the way I see it...
iOS - Objective C
Android - Java
Windows Phone 7 -.NET XNA/Silverlight
Is Java really so far away from.NET that you couldn't port the code halfway decently? I mean, my God, Java and C# have so much of the same syntax it isn't even funny. Objective-C has quite a bit different syntax than Java, and you don't even see that being a problem do you?
To achieve this "above unity" efficiency, they are running these LEDs at 135 degrees C with a "light power" of 10^-10 watts.
So essentially, from my not-very-good understanding, they are able to exploit the motion of particles in the lattice due to heat (Kb*T) to overcome the energy gap in the diode. Hence the high temperature. I assume the wattage input must be kept low enough to not completely overpower this phenomena.
I would thusly conclude that the only reason why it can keep going with this >1 efficiency is because of the heat being supplied to the chamber in addition to the energy through electricity. Take away the heat, and it would slowly cool itself down.
You have to be kidding. Just look at the wikipedia page. Heck, go look at any MSDS for CO2.
"Odorless." "Colorless."
I don't know the exact concentration of it being exhaled by us, but seriously, don't go yapping about things being "lies" without at least looking it up.
Your ignorance is astounding. Plus, I like how you attack Texas about education, yet you seem to lack understanding of when to use "it's" and "its." Attacking other states about their education places you on the high ground; when you can't even use simple English right, that high ground just doesn't look so high anymore, ya?
On the subject, Texas is doing fine for itself. Outside of some crazy conservatives and the oppressive summers, it's a good state with a lot of good non-unionized work to be found. Dirty cities? Crime ridden? Have you seen LA? Oakland? Every single city has its good parts and bad parts. You cannot generalize a state by a few square miles in huge cities. Seriously, it just doesn't even make sense.
I could rant about typical Northerners with their undying disgust of the South or their prevalent smugness, but it just isn't worth it. You know why? We are all Americans. Keep that in mind next time you bash some part of the country you know so little about.
I just finished a final for graduate mathematics for engineers today. Maybe I am just dumb compared to you, but my goodness, solving a non-homogenous non-constant coefficients first-order PDE on a 100 min test is hard (along with four other problems). Do not use generalizations that "math is easy." It can be easy because there are rules that are to be followed. But sometimes, it is just not possible for us to do by ourselves.
Proof: Go solve the integral of exp[-x^2] and find a closed form solution that does not have integrals in it. That's right, it can't be done. Likewise, not all math is easy and doable.
Visible light does not cause cancer. UV, XRay, and Gamma (all higher frequency than visible) do cause cancer.
Even if we knew nothing about the fact that we are exposed to so much radio and microwave radiation on a daily basis, does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer (that is, for it to not be an ionizing radiation)?
I mean, who cares if your brain dissipates some radio energy to heat in the brain? Has a small temperature in a localized part of the body caused cancer in the past? Unless the heat dissipated raises the temperature of the brain over 104, I do not see much concern.
While I don't agree with much of what he wants to do, guess what? He needs Congressional approval on many of these issues! And you know what's great about him? He is something genuinely different than the SSDD we have had in office for years.
Bush set in policies that were and are terrible precedents. Obama = change? Ha! Wasn't he supposed to close down Guantanamo? What about the wars? These presidents are just speakers for the people who get them elected; Paul, while a bit crazy, would shake up the pathetic state of government we find ourselves with.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I realize that the software probably shouldn't have disabled UAC out of the box without at least informing the user, but having worked on some out-of-process COM applications (yes, legacy) in Windows Vista/7/8/10, UAC can be extremely frustrating. The biggest issue is that having UAC on creates a different user context between user and admin. If I execute a program as myself with admin privileges, it is not exactly the same as executing the program as myself without admin privileges.
For example, if your user with admin priveleges creates a COM component, that component may not be able to be accessed by a non-admin context even though your user may be in the local administrators group, DCOM Users group, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if LG ran into a COM issue with Windows and decided to make the program for reliable for the user by disabling UAC instead of resolving the problem in a different way.
Wow, so insightful. I never thought to "...destroy the current internet and rebuild it -- but without all the bullshit." Praise our savior who will save us from websites that cannot compel you to visit them.
Where can I sign up for your newsletter? I expect you will need my mailing address since you predict that "half of humanity" (including the half that lives in poor conditions that may not have any experience with the internet?) may have "...decided that the internet just isn't worth it."
So what's the answer? And don't put it on "brilliant engineering minds" to figure something out for you. Tell us what a good, economical, and environmentally sound option should be.
1. Renewables? A massive decrease in the cost of petroleum does not make the economics of renewables, especially solar, more attractive.
2. Nuclear? Good luck convincing regulatory bodies, the population, and environmentalists that's the best way to go. Besides, nuclear waste is a real problem, and we are in the perpetual state of "a few years more" to achieving the fast breeder reactors.
3. Fusion? Not technically possible right now, but you never know, maybe with "another 10 years" and we'll have it.
4. Force demand to be lower by using quotas or raising electricity price artificially? Yay, big government regulation causing dramatic changes in how people will live their lives. I'm sure everyone will just love being told to stop using heaters in the winter and air conditioners in the summer.
5. Carbon tax? Yay, big government regulation. Guess who profits from "carbon exchanges?" Goldman Sachs.
6. Kill off tons of people thereby reducing energy demand? Go for it, Mr. Eugenics. Just remember, killing people also takes energy expenditure in one way or another.
Nothing is easy.
I disagree with some of the pretenses here primarily that higher level math directly equates with a better performing student. I went to grad school for chemical engineering with 1/3 US students and 2/3 foreign all from China and India, and I will agree that their skills when it came to even engineering math (e.g. calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, numerical analysis) all surpassed what I and other domestic students knew.
But I think this is because of a fundamental difference in evaluating what problems are important. During my undergrad, memorization for a test was thought to be a pointless task and not worth doing (because in the real world, you can use Google, textbooks, whatever you want to accomplish the goal). Tests were structured to require extra thinking, problems could be formulated in a completely different way than found in the homework, or worse, the questions could nigh-unsolvable and require the student to explain how they would go about solving it if they weren't able to. However, in grad school, most of my tests relied on memorization of certain fundamentals and derivation methodologies to succeed. Guess which group performed better on that?
But what about skills that are not so easy testable? Like communication? Or thinking about a problem outside the box and not approaching it from the exact same way as everyone else? Many modern engineering problems are not just solved by use of complex mathematics; formulation of a problem, simplifying the problem where appropriate, solution methodologies, thinking about time constraints, monetary concerns, interactions with less technical people, and communication of results are all part of my daily job. Solving a problem using personal knowledge of PDE's may help occasionally, but knowing how to use tools when appropriate and knowing how to communicate is worth far more ultimately.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, and YMMV.
The idea that we're "soon" to have invisibility cloaks that are both omni-directional *and* handle visible light is an unfounded one. True, maybe the underlying foundations are set well and the science is understood. But here's the issue: metamaterials ("invisibility cloaks" as a rule, fall into this category since they're properties are determined by the structure of the materials - not the material itself) have specific patterns in the structure. Microwave radiation has a wavelength between 1 mm and 1 m. Visible light has a wavelength of 390 to 750 nm. We are talking about four orders of magnitude.
The structure of the metamaterial needed to handle visible light is going to be out of our reach for quite some time until we can design a better way of handling structural details on the nanoscale and beyond (right now, the best methods are self assembled, and those methods usually aren't good for the massive complexity you'd desire).
And what favors would those be to Saudi Aramco or Gazprom? I won't deny that the US has its fair share of corruption, but to say that our government goes out of its way to throw favors at foreign companies just because they are in a "powerful industry" seems like a long shot to me.
If you can prove it on either one of those two *huge* companies getting favors from the federal government, I'll buy it. I'll admit that I was wrong and apologize for being so misguided.
Haha, so they come to the US to ask for help about acidizing wells, new drilling methodologies, and completions... Just because we are a large market for it?
You know what? Let's say you're right. I hope in the future, when you are trying to figure out how to start up a very productive farm, you mosey your way on over to China and get their help on all the best techniques (because, of course, they are the largest market for food in the world). You mind as well go over there for all your electronics needs as well. Heck, I bet you can't wait to pick up the new Huawei smartphone. I mean, they have to be the best in the world since they're the largest market, right?
Fixing my poor grammar now instead of later: ...is he... should be ...he is...
Just another alarmist that doesn't know what the heck is he talking about.
True, the patent system for software is completely hosed up. But to say, "Innovation is dead in this country," is just you talking out of your ass.
There are plenty of companies in many other facets of science and engineering that are doing just fine by staying in the states (not to mention having some of the best schools in the world plus lots of very good ones). As an example, why do international companies in the petroleum industry routinely do business in the states? Oh wait, is it because innovation is dead? No, it's because we have some of the very best technology and great minds to advise companies all over the world.
From the article...
"...living 'against the clock' may be a factor contributing to the epidemic of obesity..."
You have to be kidding me. So they found a correlation? Yippie. I can find the correlation between number and pirates and global warming. Means nothing.
What's worse is that they don't even try to explain what's really going on here. Is it that metabolism is slower when things are out of order from circadian rhythm? Where are the citations for that suggestion? Is it actually a true case of causation with experimental evidence in biochemistry, or more regressions and "it looks this way, but we have no idea so here's a paper on it anyway" type of thing?
Or is it so much more simple? Maybe like... People are eating more calories than they burn?! No way! Common sense just can't come into play ever. Maybe people feel more hungry with less sleep! Oh goodness! Let's do a double regression on chronotypes and amount of sleep so that we can submit another paper and get more funding!
This argument seems analogous to "graphics in games are not photorealistic therefore I am not immersed as much as I wish therefore it's not worth my time to enjoy the game."
I would love to hear your reason as to why you hate having choices yanked out of you in a limited game. I mean, do you honestly expect an "interactive fiction" where you can make any decision that you possibly could want? Golly what if someone is a pacifist and doesn't want to go blow up virtual aliens? What if someone wants to be a psycho and kill all major characters? Do you expect the game makers to have thought of every stupid thing a person could want to do and develop an individual story with voice overs and endings to all?
Limited time. Limited money. Limited technology. There is no way to feasibly construct some game that is both a sandbox (allowing you to do whatever you feel like) and story driven (to actually be told a unique story) at the same time given our current abilities in game making. Either you have your expectations so high it's not even funny, or you are going to cite some shitty 8-bit game of "amazingness" that is 100 times better than anything today because it "let you do anything you wanted."
Haha, of course, I forgot that they're already supposedly using Zinc oxide as the original reactant. My foolish mistake. Still, I wish I could find the academic paper to get a better idea than some news report.
I have tried searching Web of Knowledge and Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and I can't find any articles written by Koepf relating to hydrogen, solar, or zinc. I can also find no papers from the advisers dealing with this subject matter. It is entirely possible that they just haven't published anything on this yet, but that seems very sketchy to get press for something that has not yet been published... Hard to say. Anyone else have any luck with finding articles?
Also, zinc oxide is produced as a by product, so what we're seeing is something like...
Zn+H2O -> ZnO + H2
The real question is how to regenerate pure zinc from its oxide. If this technology can go somewhere, producing zinc from ZnO shouldn't require any external energy input (or minimal, if any). It is also entirely possible to just ignore reforming zinc oxide back into zinc, and they probably will at first. I just don't think splitting an oxide salt will be so easy only using high temperatures. Electrochemistry may help, but again, if the net energy gain of this whole process is too low, then it's unlikely to be picked up. Still pretty cool stuff though.
Really? Aren't we just getting a little paranoid? Why not take it one step further and suggest to sandbox every application inside the VM OS?
I'm sorry, but you have to be kidding me. I may not be a developer by trade, but from the way I see it...
.NET XNA/Silverlight
.NET that you couldn't port the code halfway decently? I mean, my God, Java and C# have so much of the same syntax it isn't even funny. Objective-C has quite a bit different syntax than Java, and you don't even see that being a problem do you?
iOS - Objective C
Android - Java
Windows Phone 7 -
Is Java really so far away from
To achieve this "above unity" efficiency, they are running these LEDs at 135 degrees C with a "light power" of 10^-10 watts.
So essentially, from my not-very-good understanding, they are able to exploit the motion of particles in the lattice due to heat (Kb*T) to overcome the energy gap in the diode. Hence the high temperature. I assume the wattage input must be kept low enough to not completely overpower this phenomena.
I would thusly conclude that the only reason why it can keep going with this >1 efficiency is because of the heat being supplied to the chamber in addition to the energy through electricity. Take away the heat, and it would slowly cool itself down.
You have to be kidding. Just look at the wikipedia page. Heck, go look at any MSDS for CO2.
"Odorless." "Colorless."
I don't know the exact concentration of it being exhaled by us, but seriously, don't go yapping about things being "lies" without at least looking it up.
Your ignorance is astounding. Plus, I like how you attack Texas about education, yet you seem to lack understanding of when to use "it's" and "its." Attacking other states about their education places you on the high ground; when you can't even use simple English right, that high ground just doesn't look so high anymore, ya?
On the subject, Texas is doing fine for itself. Outside of some crazy conservatives and the oppressive summers, it's a good state with a lot of good non-unionized work to be found. Dirty cities? Crime ridden? Have you seen LA? Oakland? Every single city has its good parts and bad parts. You cannot generalize a state by a few square miles in huge cities. Seriously, it just doesn't even make sense.
I could rant about typical Northerners with their undying disgust of the South or their prevalent smugness, but it just isn't worth it. You know why? We are all Americans. Keep that in mind next time you bash some part of the country you know so little about.
I just finished a final for graduate mathematics for engineers today. Maybe I am just dumb compared to you, but my goodness, solving a non-homogenous non-constant coefficients first-order PDE on a 100 min test is hard (along with four other problems). Do not use generalizations that "math is easy." It can be easy because there are rules that are to be followed. But sometimes, it is just not possible for us to do by ourselves.
Proof: Go solve the integral of exp[-x^2] and find a closed form solution that does not have integrals in it. That's right, it can't be done. Likewise, not all math is easy and doable.
Umm... That is just one form (I^2*R=P).
The other form is to say... P=VI while I=V/R so you get... GASP!!!!!!!!!!!! P=V^2/R
Current and voltage are related to each other, so don't say none of this them there "determined by the current alone."
E=hf.
Visible light does not cause cancer. UV, XRay, and Gamma (all higher frequency than visible) do cause cancer.
Even if we knew nothing about the fact that we are exposed to so much radio and microwave radiation on a daily basis, does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer (that is, for it to not be an ionizing radiation)?
I mean, who cares if your brain dissipates some radio energy to heat in the brain? Has a small temperature in a localized part of the body caused cancer in the past? Unless the heat dissipated raises the temperature of the brain over 104, I do not see much concern.
Spunk.
While I don't agree with much of what he wants to do, guess what? He needs Congressional approval on many of these issues! And you know what's great about him? He is something genuinely different than the SSDD we have had in office for years.
Bush set in policies that were and are terrible precedents. Obama = change? Ha! Wasn't he supposed to close down Guantanamo? What about the wars? These presidents are just speakers for the people who get them elected; Paul, while a bit crazy, would shake up the pathetic state of government we find ourselves with.