You are making a very fine distinction here. They can look at your hard drive, but they cannot look in the memory of the machine they own because their employees have an "expectation of privacy"? After all, most network equipment is "store and forward" where each packet is in memory as it flows though so you are claiming that anything in transit (i.e. in memory) is not something they can look at?
I don't think you can make this distinction. They own the equipment, they can monitor *anything* you do using any means they choose. If they want to install key loggers and screen scraping software to monitor what you do on their equipment, they are free to do so.
I think what should be socially accepted is that you don't do stuff you'd want to hide from your employer when on their equipment or in their facilities especially when "on the clock". So go home or use your smartphone on your data plan if you don't trust your employer to not scrape your bank account login information or something.
I don't see how any other party would be harmed by the inaccuracy of the data beyond the buyer and seller of it.
The buyer and the seller will be the least harmed.
If the data is inaccurate and used to demonstrate the the surveilled did something wrong when they really didn't, the buyer and seller come out virtually unscathed.
I must not be looking at this the same way you are. How could the person who's license plate is incorrectly in the database be harmed by this?
I'm racking my brain trying to come up with any way this might happen. If a repo man is buying the information so he can find a car and the data is wrong, he won't find the car. No harm comes to the person who missed his car payment, in fact, one could argue he benefits by keeping his car longer. So that's not what you are saying. Let's say the data incorrectly puts you in a location that makes you a suspect in a crime because the police used the data. That MIGHT be construed as harm, but I seriously doubt any jury will convict on just this evidence, which could be argued is of unknown accuracy. I see reasonable doubt written all over this, unless backed up by something else. Police MIGHT use this as evidence in an investigation, but I seriously doubt they'd charge anybody based on this data alone, they will be looking for something more. So this is not exactly harming somebody, any more than being on a list of suspects harms you in the first place.
This is barely 1/2 a penny to the earnings per share in a QUARTER. They spend more on paper clips and staples. Heck, Ellison and the board likely spend more than that on travel expenses for one meeting.
I'm not saying that Oracle won't try to collect the remaining funds or that stern faced bosses won't wag their fingers at middle management for it and cut their bonuses and raises. I'm saying that except for the bad press, Oracle won't care much. After all, they got 2/3'ds of the money already and can realize the revenue for that. The stock price won't change, at least for this. Now if this starts to be a pattern, where high profile customers start holding back payment on a regular basis, THEN Heads will roll at the executive level and the stock will have an issue.
#1 is a distinction without any meaning. So if I'm an individual running recon in an attempt to find a car I sold to somebody who's missing payments it's OK but Slick Cars down at the local "tote the note" used car lot cannot do the same thing because it does it more often? It's either legal or it's not, it doesn't matter if it's a company doing thousands or an individual who only does one.
#2 If you are just tacking plate numbers you see on a public street, you are not guilty of stalking and nobody will be charged or go to jail. Stalking requires that you somehow be involved in harassing contact (sending repeated texts, or repeatedly showing up and saying "hi") of a person or group. Sitting on a street corner collecting license plate numbers is not stalking, nor is driving down a public street doing the same. You might be reported and the police may come along to talk to you, but the worst they will do is check your id and ask you to move along.
You assert that corporations are somehow "people" when it benefits them and then something else when it doesn't. This is not exactly true. Where they are treated as individuals in many instances, in many other situations they are NOT. This difference doesn't accrue to their benefit, and merely puts them on the same legal footing as a person. This means you have the right to take them to court if you need too, collect judgements from them and all sorts of other things that you couldn't do if they where "more equal" somehow.
If you are using an employer's resources to surf the internet just figure that *everything* you do is monitored. If you don't want to be monitored, GO HOME. If you don't trust your employer, GO HOME to do anything you don't want them to see. GO HOME or use your own internet access.
I don't buy this argument. What if your home ISP started snooping on HTTPS traffic? "Their network, their rules", right?
Nobody owns the entire internet; it's a ton of networks connected together. There needs to be a common societal acceptance of a reasonable expectation of privacy when using an internet-enabled computer unless there's a damn good reason not to have it, and "scanning web pages for viruses" is a pathetic excuse for potentially snooping on all SSL traffic.
Different thing. If your ISP intercepts your HTTPS traffic, you WILL know because of the certificate errors it would cause. But, you'd never know if they proxy HTTP. In fact, I'd bet your ISP DOES track your usage though DNS snooping if not though transparent HTTP proxies. But you'd never know if they do or not. I'm really sure my ISP (Verizon) does track stuff like this, just based on the kinds of SPAM they choose to deliver to a largely unused E-mail account on their servers. But monitoring by ANYBODY who handles your packet is possible, which likely extends beyond your ISP.
If you are using your employer's assets to access the internet, just figure on having zero privacy. Common sense or not, it's their equipment, not yours. They can configure it anyway they choose, and if that means they monitor HTTPS traffic, then that's what they do. Common sense says they own the computer, the network equipment and are paying for the internet access, so they can put any policy they choose in place about it's use by their employees. If that means you consent to monitoring of HTTPS traffic, so be it.
This "social acceptable" argument doesn't wash. At work, what you do online is NOT private and is directly traceable back to them. They can search your desk, your hard drive, and your E-mail, so why do think they somehow have no rights to do this?
Oh I see the difference, I just don't think folks who get upset about data collection in PUBLIC have a right to complain. Given most of those mindless privacy advocates who didn't read the EULA when installing these applications on their smartphones generally don't understand how they just opted into providing data that is WAY more invasive than some guy in a truck scanning license plates which are in full public view as he drives down the public streets.
The major problems I see with this is there is no oversight. How accurate are the readers? How accurate are the databases? What recourse is there when they make a mistake? That sort of thing.
This is NOT a problem. The accuracy of the collection or the data is of no real concern, except to the one buying the information or the entity compiling it. If a company compiling this information makes a mistake, they will have an unhappy customer who will be less likely to come back and pay them again.
I don't see how any other party would be harmed by the inaccuracy of the data beyond the buyer and seller of it.
No need to have the same rules for private citizens, for example it's legal for citizens to operate drones, companies not so much.
So, say I'm a private citizen on a public street, may I take a picture of a passing car? Can I sell that picture? Yes and Yes.
Can I not process that picture by doing an OCR scan of the license plate? Sure Why not?
Can I then assemble this license plate number with meta-data like where and when the picture was taken? Again, Sure.
Can I sell this information to somebody? I don't see why not. I can even do this a lot and create a database of many observations made on the public street and sell all the information to somebody.
Finally, how's it different for a private person to do this and a company? I contend that it is NOT different.
Heck no. Repo guys (and gals) don't need data from Google, it's much too old by the time Google processes it anyway. They just drive down likely streets, searching for "hot" plates when nothing else is going on. Usually they do a bit of investigating too, people generally have limited number of locations they frequent, just ask around some and you can find out where these are. Otherwise, just canvas likely neighborhoods at night. Parking authorities do the same thing within their jurisdiction, canvasing neighborhoods running plates. I've seen it on "Parking Wars" where tow trucks in Philadelphia tow cars that owe parking fines after finding it parked on the street.
What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this
No need for you to agree to this. On a public street they are free to collect information. So scanning your license plate and recording the location and time can happen without your knowledge or consent. They can then sell this information to whomever they want. If you don't like it, stay home.
What I find amazing is there is a large segment of the population who will get up in arms over this kind of collection, dig out their pitchforks and storm the castle, but will willingly post GEO tagged photos online to document their "privacy" protest activities. These same people will run Google maps, Wayze or other applications on their smartphone to navigate their way to the protest, then do the same to find someplace to eat, while cranking up the coupon application to find a deal on the sandwich they are hungry for. These folks don't think twice about their privacy in any other context.
Because it's NOT an attack, It's an employer monitoring the use of it's resources by it's employees.
If they are paying for the internet access, paying to have a proxy installed, paying to have the browsers on their machines set up to trust their certificates, they are doing it to themselves. It's not an attack, or a hack or anything of the sort, it's there to monitor the systems they own which is their right. They can do what they want to the traffic entering/exiting their network, including using proxy servers, firewalls and filters to allow, monitor or deny anything the see fit.
Some employee claiming this is a Man in the Middle "attack" is inaccurate and misleading. It's a HTTP/HTTPS proxy.
Shesh, Really? Man in the Middle "attack" ? Give me a break.
If you are using an employer's resources to surf the internet just figure that *everything* you do is monitored. If you don't want to be monitored, GO HOME. If you don't trust your employer, GO HOME to do anything you don't want them to see. GO HOME or use your own internet access.
Don't try to make this into some "privacy" issue. It's not.
Fully understood that. But it still works because it depends on you being malnourished on Carbs. It's NOT balanced.
People that want to loose wight, need to concentrate on having a balanced diet while lowering their calorie intake and/or increasing their calorie needs (i.e. exercise). To cut calories you can eat less, or change the mix of what you eat by removing high calorie foods and replacing them with lower calorie options, your choice. Increasing your calorie needs is easy too, EXERCISE and strength training both work great and I would recommend both if you are capable. Exercise has other benefits, it improves health and sleep.
Adkins simply defies logic, yes it works, but for reasons that are not directly obvious. You should shy away from any diet that defies logic. Usually they either don't work or are dangerous (and in may cases are both.) Exercise and reduce calories if you need to loose weight.
Not exactly. What Adkins is doing is keeping you malnourished in carbohydrates, forcing your body to find them someplace. Your body cannot process the fat calories ingested effectively so they are eliminated, not being used. Seems that the easiest source of carbohydrates is your internal fat reserves to keep your blood sugar in the survivable range.
Problem is that you really are malnourished on Adkins; Lacking carbohydrates. That can lead to issues with kidneys and most other systems in the body. Plus, it is REALLY hard to eliminate carbohydrates enough to make this work. Most of us don't eat that way. And there is a reason, it's not healthy in the long term.
There is NO WAY Radio Shack will ever compete selling SBC's and marketing to the hobby trade. They've ALWAYS been the king of markup selling junk at hugely inflated prices to the unsuspecting public.
As an electronic hobbyist, I can tell you that RS has little I am interested in looking at any more. Their components are substandard manufacturer rejects (best I can tell) that they package in small quantities and sell for 10X the price. I rarely find components that meet the minimum manufacturer specs when I buy from them which I rarely do unless it is for convenience (like I need it NOW and I can stand subpar components.) They sell *some* stuff I could use, but you do better on E-Bay for hardware, audio connectors, cables and generally anything RS has in stock.
This whole idea needs to die like the frizzy hair of the 90's. In fact, I believe it is already dead, they just don't know it yet.
You got that right. Folks, READ THE BILL! It doesn't really solve ANYTHING that setting an unlock pin on your phone doesn't already do now. In short, I see only ONE requirement imposed by this bill that isn't already addressed by current phones, and even that one is arguable. Set an unlock PIN and you've made your phone and that data on it inaccessible, you cannot use it on any carrier.
If I can read the proposed law this way, you can bet carriers will too. I know what the *intent* is, but the bill doesn't actually do that.
My point was that by stealing large numbers of BitCoin form the "exchanges" they are killing the value of the BitCoins they take. Eventually, when the legitimate users get tired of all the bad news, they will stop using BitCoin, leaving the criminals to try and figure out how to convert them back to cash. Nobody will want to touch the things.
From a dial up bulletin board that went down in 1997. Maybe you should try asking on FIDONET if the SysOp can put the system back up for you... (Assuming you still have a modem and a phone line. )
Who built that thing? Its been puttering about in space, outside of our planets protective magnetic field for 36 years and its still almost fully functional?
Problem is we really *don't* know how much is functional beyond the beacon used to track it. As I understand it there is very little (if any) telemetry data coming from the thing. Because we cannot talk to it, we cannot ask it any questions or reprogram it. My guess is that there is very little chance that much of value works, or NASA would have kept the equipment needed to communicate with it.
"it is inefficient to go from fuel though a turbine, to electricity, to horsepower"....tell that to the trains that have been doing Diesel-electric and turbine-electric for decades. It's incredibly efficient.
As others have pointed out. The diesel electric locomotive is about coupling the power generated to the wheels. Locomotives have to supply torque to all their wheels (8-12 or more) evenly and effectively. The electric connection allows this to be done easily, by adjusting the field currents in the electric motors and generator. This avoids the complexity and weight of trying to tie each axle on the locomotive mechanically to the diesel motor, though a clutch and transmission. So this was about simplicity, weight and reliability and not about efficiency.
The efficiency of rail is more about having steal wheels and track and the limited rolling resistance that gives you. Diesel electric setups are not horrible in efficiency (They are a HUGE gain over the steam they replaced), but it was the switch to diesel internal combustion that gives them the gain, not the electric part.
This truck is a cool concept, but it's NOT going to be build for a number of reasons.
First, it is not going to work with existing equipment. The trailer won't hook up to a standard tractor and the tractor won't pull a standard trailer. Who wants something that isn't compatible with existing stuff? Not me. I may get great mileage, but I got to wait at both ends of a load for the cargo to get loaded and unloaded. Time is money, lots of money.
Second, it is inefficient to go from fuel though a turbine, to electricity, to horsepower. The diesel, clutch, transmission route is more efficient. Turbines do NOT work well at varying output powers, they are simply LIGHT for the maximum power you get. But if you don't use 90% power nearly 100% of the time, they are real fuel hogs. Driving does not consume steady power, you get 3-4 min of 80-90% power, followed by an hour or to of 30% on straight and level. Not ideal for turbines.
Third, Inter-modal has better fuel efficiency anyway. and doesn't require major changes to anything. It's also more convenient when shipping in quantity..
Besides, what's really going to happen is we will slowly migrate towards more streamlined shapes for Tractor's and Trailers. But the BIG change will be to Natural Gas as fuel. That will make a difference in costs and pollution.
I don't understand how trucks, which require much more fuel, and more driver time per load, have
so thoroughly replaced railroads for long hauls. Making trucks more efficient is a fine idea, but
it's only nibbling at the edges. Why not go back to trains for medium to long distances?
Interstate Highways.... Convenience... Just in Time inventory management... Unions...
All played a role in the near death of RR, which is seeing a resurgence of inter-modal container shipping and driving trucks back to local delivery. Now with fuel starting to be a significant cost factor in shipping, RR are taking back market share.
Slashdot Mirror
You are making a very fine distinction here. They can look at your hard drive, but they cannot look in the memory of the machine they own because their employees have an "expectation of privacy"? After all, most network equipment is "store and forward" where each packet is in memory as it flows though so you are claiming that anything in transit (i.e. in memory) is not something they can look at?
I don't think you can make this distinction. They own the equipment, they can monitor *anything* you do using any means they choose. If they want to install key loggers and screen scraping software to monitor what you do on their equipment, they are free to do so.
I think what should be socially accepted is that you don't do stuff you'd want to hide from your employer when on their equipment or in their facilities especially when "on the clock". So go home or use your smartphone on your data plan if you don't trust your employer to not scrape your bank account login information or something.
I don't see how any other party would be harmed by the inaccuracy of the data beyond the buyer and seller of it.
The buyer and the seller will be the least harmed. If the data is inaccurate and used to demonstrate the the surveilled did something wrong when they really didn't, the buyer and seller come out virtually unscathed.
I must not be looking at this the same way you are. How could the person who's license plate is incorrectly in the database be harmed by this?
I'm racking my brain trying to come up with any way this might happen. If a repo man is buying the information so he can find a car and the data is wrong, he won't find the car. No harm comes to the person who missed his car payment, in fact, one could argue he benefits by keeping his car longer. So that's not what you are saying. Let's say the data incorrectly puts you in a location that makes you a suspect in a crime because the police used the data. That MIGHT be construed as harm, but I seriously doubt any jury will convict on just this evidence, which could be argued is of unknown accuracy. I see reasonable doubt written all over this, unless backed up by something else. Police MIGHT use this as evidence in an investigation, but I seriously doubt they'd charge anybody based on this data alone, they will be looking for something more. So this is not exactly harming somebody, any more than being on a list of suspects harms you in the first place.
Is there something I'm missing?
This is barely 1/2 a penny to the earnings per share in a QUARTER. They spend more on paper clips and staples. Heck, Ellison and the board likely spend more than that on travel expenses for one meeting.
I'm not saying that Oracle won't try to collect the remaining funds or that stern faced bosses won't wag their fingers at middle management for it and cut their bonuses and raises. I'm saying that except for the bad press, Oracle won't care much. After all, they got 2/3'ds of the money already and can realize the revenue for that. The stock price won't change, at least for this. Now if this starts to be a pattern, where high profile customers start holding back payment on a regular basis, THEN Heads will roll at the executive level and the stock will have an issue.
#1 is a distinction without any meaning. So if I'm an individual running recon in an attempt to find a car I sold to somebody who's missing payments it's OK but Slick Cars down at the local "tote the note" used car lot cannot do the same thing because it does it more often? It's either legal or it's not, it doesn't matter if it's a company doing thousands or an individual who only does one.
#2 If you are just tacking plate numbers you see on a public street, you are not guilty of stalking and nobody will be charged or go to jail. Stalking requires that you somehow be involved in harassing contact (sending repeated texts, or repeatedly showing up and saying "hi") of a person or group. Sitting on a street corner collecting license plate numbers is not stalking, nor is driving down a public street doing the same. You might be reported and the police may come along to talk to you, but the worst they will do is check your id and ask you to move along.
You assert that corporations are somehow "people" when it benefits them and then something else when it doesn't. This is not exactly true. Where they are treated as individuals in many instances, in many other situations they are NOT. This difference doesn't accrue to their benefit, and merely puts them on the same legal footing as a person. This means you have the right to take them to court if you need too, collect judgements from them and all sorts of other things that you couldn't do if they where "more equal" somehow.
If you are using an employer's resources to surf the internet just figure that *everything* you do is monitored. If you don't want to be monitored, GO HOME. If you don't trust your employer, GO HOME to do anything you don't want them to see. GO HOME or use your own internet access.
I don't buy this argument. What if your home ISP started snooping on HTTPS traffic? "Their network, their rules", right?
Nobody owns the entire internet; it's a ton of networks connected together. There needs to be a common societal acceptance of a reasonable expectation of privacy when using an internet-enabled computer unless there's a damn good reason not to have it, and "scanning web pages for viruses" is a pathetic excuse for potentially snooping on all SSL traffic.
Different thing. If your ISP intercepts your HTTPS traffic, you WILL know because of the certificate errors it would cause. But, you'd never know if they proxy HTTP. In fact, I'd bet your ISP DOES track your usage though DNS snooping if not though transparent HTTP proxies. But you'd never know if they do or not. I'm really sure my ISP (Verizon) does track stuff like this, just based on the kinds of SPAM they choose to deliver to a largely unused E-mail account on their servers. But monitoring by ANYBODY who handles your packet is possible, which likely extends beyond your ISP.
If you are using your employer's assets to access the internet, just figure on having zero privacy. Common sense or not, it's their equipment, not yours. They can configure it anyway they choose, and if that means they monitor HTTPS traffic, then that's what they do. Common sense says they own the computer, the network equipment and are paying for the internet access, so they can put any policy they choose in place about it's use by their employees. If that means you consent to monitoring of HTTPS traffic, so be it.
This "social acceptable" argument doesn't wash. At work, what you do online is NOT private and is directly traceable back to them. They can search your desk, your hard drive, and your E-mail, so why do think they somehow have no rights to do this?
Oracle reported $ 9,275 MILLION in gross sales for the last quarter in the records. Their profit was $2,553 MILLION.
Holding $25.6 MILLION back is Chump Change for them. Larry Ellison probably has a larger petty cash budget.
Sure, somebody at Oracle will likely loose their job, maybe even a few will, but this is down in the noise for Oracle in general.
Oh I see the difference, I just don't think folks who get upset about data collection in PUBLIC have a right to complain. Given most of those mindless privacy advocates who didn't read the EULA when installing these applications on their smartphones generally don't understand how they just opted into providing data that is WAY more invasive than some guy in a truck scanning license plates which are in full public view as he drives down the public streets.
The major problems I see with this is there is no oversight. How accurate are the readers? How accurate are the databases? What recourse is there when they make a mistake? That sort of thing.
This is NOT a problem. The accuracy of the collection or the data is of no real concern, except to the one buying the information or the entity compiling it. If a company compiling this information makes a mistake, they will have an unhappy customer who will be less likely to come back and pay them again.
I don't see how any other party would be harmed by the inaccuracy of the data beyond the buyer and seller of it.
No need to have the same rules for private citizens, for example it's legal for citizens to operate drones, companies not so much.
So, say I'm a private citizen on a public street, may I take a picture of a passing car? Can I sell that picture? Yes and Yes.
Can I not process that picture by doing an OCR scan of the license plate? Sure Why not?
Can I then assemble this license plate number with meta-data like where and when the picture was taken? Again, Sure.
Can I sell this information to somebody? I don't see why not. I can even do this a lot and create a database of many observations made on the public street and sell all the information to somebody.
Finally, how's it different for a private person to do this and a company? I contend that it is NOT different.
Heck no. Repo guys (and gals) don't need data from Google, it's much too old by the time Google processes it anyway. They just drive down likely streets, searching for "hot" plates when nothing else is going on. Usually they do a bit of investigating too, people generally have limited number of locations they frequent, just ask around some and you can find out where these are. Otherwise, just canvas likely neighborhoods at night. Parking authorities do the same thing within their jurisdiction, canvasing neighborhoods running plates. I've seen it on "Parking Wars" where tow trucks in Philadelphia tow cars that owe parking fines after finding it parked on the street.
what else is new
What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this
No need for you to agree to this. On a public street they are free to collect information. So scanning your license plate and recording the location and time can happen without your knowledge or consent. They can then sell this information to whomever they want. If you don't like it, stay home.
What I find amazing is there is a large segment of the population who will get up in arms over this kind of collection, dig out their pitchforks and storm the castle, but will willingly post GEO tagged photos online to document their "privacy" protest activities. These same people will run Google maps, Wayze or other applications on their smartphone to navigate their way to the protest, then do the same to find someplace to eat, while cranking up the coupon application to find a deal on the sandwich they are hungry for. These folks don't think twice about their privacy in any other context.
Because it's NOT an attack, It's an employer monitoring the use of it's resources by it's employees.
If they are paying for the internet access, paying to have a proxy installed, paying to have the browsers on their machines set up to trust their certificates, they are doing it to themselves. It's not an attack, or a hack or anything of the sort, it's there to monitor the systems they own which is their right. They can do what they want to the traffic entering/exiting their network, including using proxy servers, firewalls and filters to allow, monitor or deny anything the see fit.
Some employee claiming this is a Man in the Middle "attack" is inaccurate and misleading. It's a HTTP/HTTPS proxy.
Shesh, Really? Man in the Middle "attack" ? Give me a break.
If you are using an employer's resources to surf the internet just figure that *everything* you do is monitored. If you don't want to be monitored, GO HOME. If you don't trust your employer, GO HOME to do anything you don't want them to see. GO HOME or use your own internet access.
Don't try to make this into some "privacy" issue. It's not.
Don't forget the $100/year charge for Office 365 or the $220 for Home Office Premium.
Fully understood that. But it still works because it depends on you being malnourished on Carbs. It's NOT balanced.
People that want to loose wight, need to concentrate on having a balanced diet while lowering their calorie intake and/or increasing their calorie needs (i.e. exercise). To cut calories you can eat less, or change the mix of what you eat by removing high calorie foods and replacing them with lower calorie options, your choice. Increasing your calorie needs is easy too, EXERCISE and strength training both work great and I would recommend both if you are capable. Exercise has other benefits, it improves health and sleep.
Adkins simply defies logic, yes it works, but for reasons that are not directly obvious. You should shy away from any diet that defies logic. Usually they either don't work or are dangerous (and in may cases are both.) Exercise and reduce calories if you need to loose weight.
Not exactly. What Adkins is doing is keeping you malnourished in carbohydrates, forcing your body to find them someplace. Your body cannot process the fat calories ingested effectively so they are eliminated, not being used. Seems that the easiest source of carbohydrates is your internal fat reserves to keep your blood sugar in the survivable range.
Problem is that you really are malnourished on Adkins; Lacking carbohydrates. That can lead to issues with kidneys and most other systems in the body. Plus, it is REALLY hard to eliminate carbohydrates enough to make this work. Most of us don't eat that way. And there is a reason, it's not healthy in the long term.
You are either nuts, or VERY sarcastic.
There is NO WAY Radio Shack will ever compete selling SBC's and marketing to the hobby trade. They've ALWAYS been the king of markup selling junk at hugely inflated prices to the unsuspecting public.
As an electronic hobbyist, I can tell you that RS has little I am interested in looking at any more. Their components are substandard manufacturer rejects (best I can tell) that they package in small quantities and sell for 10X the price. I rarely find components that meet the minimum manufacturer specs when I buy from them which I rarely do unless it is for convenience (like I need it NOW and I can stand subpar components.) They sell *some* stuff I could use, but you do better on E-Bay for hardware, audio connectors, cables and generally anything RS has in stock.
This whole idea needs to die like the frizzy hair of the 90's. In fact, I believe it is already dead, they just don't know it yet.
If the system can only be activated by the "consumer", then why is it needed? This can already be accomplished.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4065/text
You got that right. Folks, READ THE BILL! It doesn't really solve ANYTHING that setting an unlock pin on your phone doesn't already do now. In short, I see only ONE requirement imposed by this bill that isn't already addressed by current phones, and even that one is arguable. Set an unlock PIN and you've made your phone and that data on it inaccessible, you cannot use it on any carrier.
If I can read the proposed law this way, you can bet carriers will too. I know what the *intent* is, but the bill doesn't actually do that.
My point was that by stealing large numbers of BitCoin form the "exchanges" they are killing the value of the BitCoins they take. Eventually, when the legitimate users get tired of all the bad news, they will stop using BitCoin, leaving the criminals to try and figure out how to convert them back to cash. Nobody will want to touch the things.
Yea, criminals are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. But criminals are not the sharpest knives in the drawer to start with.
From a dial up bulletin board that went down in 1997. Maybe you should try asking on FIDONET if the SysOp can put the system back up for you... (Assuming you still have a modem and a phone line. )
Who built that thing? Its been puttering about in space, outside of our planets protective magnetic field for 36 years and its still almost fully functional?
Problem is we really *don't* know how much is functional beyond the beacon used to track it. As I understand it there is very little (if any) telemetry data coming from the thing. Because we cannot talk to it, we cannot ask it any questions or reprogram it. My guess is that there is very little chance that much of value works, or NASA would have kept the equipment needed to communicate with it.
"it is inefficient to go from fuel though a turbine, to electricity, to horsepower"....tell that to the trains that have been doing Diesel-electric and turbine-electric for decades. It's incredibly efficient.
As others have pointed out. The diesel electric locomotive is about coupling the power generated to the wheels. Locomotives have to supply torque to all their wheels (8-12 or more) evenly and effectively. The electric connection allows this to be done easily, by adjusting the field currents in the electric motors and generator. This avoids the complexity and weight of trying to tie each axle on the locomotive mechanically to the diesel motor, though a clutch and transmission. So this was about simplicity, weight and reliability and not about efficiency.
The efficiency of rail is more about having steal wheels and track and the limited rolling resistance that gives you. Diesel electric setups are not horrible in efficiency (They are a HUGE gain over the steam they replaced), but it was the switch to diesel internal combustion that gives them the gain, not the electric part.
This truck is a cool concept, but it's NOT going to be build for a number of reasons.
First, it is not going to work with existing equipment. The trailer won't hook up to a standard tractor and the tractor won't pull a standard trailer. Who wants something that isn't compatible with existing stuff? Not me. I may get great mileage, but I got to wait at both ends of a load for the cargo to get loaded and unloaded. Time is money, lots of money.
Second, it is inefficient to go from fuel though a turbine, to electricity, to horsepower. The diesel, clutch, transmission route is more efficient. Turbines do NOT work well at varying output powers, they are simply LIGHT for the maximum power you get. But if you don't use 90% power nearly 100% of the time, they are real fuel hogs. Driving does not consume steady power, you get 3-4 min of 80-90% power, followed by an hour or to of 30% on straight and level. Not ideal for turbines.
Third, Inter-modal has better fuel efficiency anyway. and doesn't require major changes to anything. It's also more convenient when shipping in quantity..
Besides, what's really going to happen is we will slowly migrate towards more streamlined shapes for Tractor's and Trailers. But the BIG change will be to Natural Gas as fuel. That will make a difference in costs and pollution.
I don't understand how trucks, which require much more fuel, and more driver time per load, have so thoroughly replaced railroads for long hauls. Making trucks more efficient is a fine idea, but it's only nibbling at the edges. Why not go back to trains for medium to long distances?
Interstate Highways.... Convenience... Just in Time inventory management... Unions...
All played a role in the near death of RR, which is seeing a resurgence of inter-modal container shipping and driving trucks back to local delivery. Now with fuel starting to be a significant cost factor in shipping, RR are taking back market share.