Insurers are in fact a major, major source of funding for safety initiatives of various kinds, because reducing -their- customers' claims reduces their costs. You may have noticed your home insurance company sends you stuff about fire safety and burglary prevention on a regular basis. This month, they probably sent you something about Christmas trees, Christmas lights, and fires. If you haven't seen this because you don't yet have your own home and car, perhaps go upstairs and ask your mom if they insurance bill is around somewhere. In the envelope you'll see safety tips.
You've probably heard of Underwriters Laboratories, the #1 organization in the US for ensuring products meet safety standards. "Underwriters" in the name means insurance underwriters.
So how does this all work with profits? Suppose in 2014 you bill $350 million in premiums, spend $270 million paying claims, $40 million on marketing, $10 million on customer service and overhead. You end up with a net profit of $30 million. With me so far?
Now suppose your customer outreach, telling YOUR CUSTOMERS how to be safer, reduces their claims by 5%. A 10% reduction in claims is $13.5 million. You've just increased your profit from $30 million to $43.5 million. So a modest 5% reduction in claims from your customers increased your profit by 45%.
Companies generally like to increase their profit by 45%, so that's why insurance companies are in fact a primary driver of safety in the US.
A file format is specification, yet you'll find that for 20 years all the Microsoft Office file formats were closed and patented.
Oracle argued that not only is a programming language proprietary, but even the specification of the environment which the language requires to run is proprietary. Microsoft may have done the same with COM at one point.
If you'd like to learn more about it, the term to google is "Fiduciary Duty". The officers are repreerntatives of the shareholders and legally obligated to act on behalf of the shareholders, not their own selfish interest (when the two conflict). Salaries of officers are typically set by the board, not by the officers themselves.
A clear example which can get an officer sent to prison is if they simply empty out the corporate bank account (which is the shareholders money) and head overseas, where the spend the money on themselves, as if it were their money.
You may see someone write that "corporations are legally required to put profit above all else." That misunderstanding stems from this rule that the officers and board members must put the well-being of shareholders above THEIR OWN interests. Otherwise, the "business judgement rule" applies. The rule says officers can do anything that they believe will be in the best interest of the business, including charitable gifts, promoting the well-being of employees, etc - and can't be held liable for being wrong. Under the business judgement rule, being wrong is okay, that happens; being selfish, benefiting yourself at company expense is illegal (other than board-approved compensation).
In very small mom-and-pop companies, sometimes the officers and the board are the same people , but that gets tricky because they're still supposed to act as if those were two separate roles.
One of the few things that will get an executive in trouble personally (other than typical crimes) is if they personally take money or otherwise gain at the expense of shareholders. A company president is allowed to pay everyone far too much if they choose to. They can give the company money away. The one thing they can't do is take the money for themselves. That's what he's being sued for, taking his shareholders' money for himself. So what defense can he possibly have for paying himself way too much...
The company pays EVERYONE too much, which is perfectly allowable. That's pretty much the one and only way he can get out of the lawsuit for using company money to pay himself four times too much; he simply says "it's company policy to pay -everyone- a very high salary". That's a perfectly lawful policy, and it would be a good defense except the other lawyer will point out that he paid himself way too much well BEFORE that was company policy. As soon as the lawsuit is over he goes back to paying whatever he wants to pay.
It has a bonus effect if he's ordered to buy his other shareholder out, paying the other shareholder 50% of the company's fair value, if by spending the company's money it temporarily reduces that value.
Oil flows through the first half of Keystone pipeline, where it is then loaded on trains, mostly owned by Burlington Northern, aka Warren Buffet. That's the same Warren Buffett who financed Obama' s campaigns. The plan was to finish the pipeline, which would be more efficient than transferring it to Buffet's trains.
Obama asked the EPA to look into the plan and the EPA said the net effect of finishing the pipeline would probably be slightly positive for the environment overall. Obama's benefactor, Warren Buffet, had just spent $35 billion buying Burlington Northern, which carries the oil, and he really didn't want to lose that investment. So Obama asked the State Department to issue a report saying the pipeline shouldn't be finished. Unfortunately for him, the State Department said the finishing the pipeline wouldn't be a problem.
Of course that doesn't help Warren Buffet, who owns the railroad amd perhaps the White House, so Obama told EPA and State to start over, and this time say no. They didn't really want to do that, so eventually Obama just declared thay the oil had to stay on Buffet's railroad, just because he says so.
Of course that increases the price of gas slightly for everyone, it's slightly worse for the environment, but the extra penny per gallon you pay for the gas goes to Warren Buffet, who in turn kicks some of it to democrat campaigns.
That's Obama's environmental policy. How could anyone oppose that?
Of course there are dozens of other examples. A favorite method is to have the government give a few hundred million of taxpayer money to some donor who say they plan to start a green business, such as solar-electric. The donors take salaries of $10 million / year , the "green company" donates some of the taxpayer money to democrats, and after a few years the money is gone. At that point the company declares bankruptcy. The donors get paid, the politicians get paid, and not a single solar panel is made. You don't see a problem here? Obama spent hundreds of millions of your dollars amd mine running that same scheme repeatedly.
It's not a desktop PC. Most rPi projects don't require any of those things. If you're not familiar with the concept, think of the computer that runs your car - it (or they) controls fuel / air mixture, transmission gearing, etc. You'll notice it has no monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. (The infotainment one may have a display.)
A typical application might be an autopilot in a model airplane. You attach a digital gyroscope and compass, maybe a tiny GPS module. You don't have a monitor and keyboard on your model plane. Another example would be a controller for a home security system. It reads the door sensors and triggers the siren if necessary. The UI is a keyfob or numbered keypad - there is no mouse, monitor, USB, etc. You stick the SD card into your desktop or laptop to program it, or if you for some reason don't have a computer, you can use one keyboard for all of your projects, with many different rPi Zero or similar boards.
To anyone who does information security, the fact that the Chinese government has the world's largest offensive infosec program is as obvious as the fact that the sun shines during the day time. Most attacks come from China, from behind the great firewall, with a large percentage of sophisticated attacks coming from IPs allocated to the Chinese military.
One particular facility is especially notable, it is a Chinese military installation that is listed as secret - its purpose is not published, a huge amount of attacks come from this facility, and they hire comp sci graduates. Now either ALL the compsci grads have had all of their computers controlled by Russian hackers for years and admins at this secret military facility haven't noticed gigabits of attacks constantly coming out of the facility, or they are the ones initiating the attacks.
It is not at all unusual for US networks to block all access from some very large IP ranges from China because these IPs have been a major, major source of attacks for -years-.
Speaking of government sources, if you speak infornally to the government people tasked with defense of US networks, chat with them in the smoking area by the loading dock, you'll find they are very afraid of what China is doing; the US is far outmatched in this area.
If you compare the US Navy vs China it is clear the US capability is far superior. For infosec (or"cyber"), it's the same but in reverse. You don't need top-secret clearance to see that the US Navy is the world's largest by far and the Chinese cyber command is by the world's largest.
diffusion rate of seal material / thickness of material * time * pressure difference
The pressure difference term can be made approximately zero using a diaphragm to allow for changes in atmospheric pressure. Any value * 0 = 0, so permeation (leakage) is roughly zero.
Additionally, some seal materials work quite well. But again that's easy when the inside and outside are the same pressure - there's nothing causing the helium to exit, even if it could pass through easily.
> 1) He doesn't care about helping people: Start a charity to funnel money into and avoid as much taxes as possible.
This is his stock. He's already paying 40% income tax plus 15% double FICA on his -salary- either way. The stock income is long term capital gains, taxed at 15%. Which means that for every $100 he gives away, he saves $15 on his taxes.
So let's do the math. He could either: Gross gain: $45 billion Tax: $7 billion Net he keeps: $38 billion
Or: Gross gain: $45 billion Give away: $44.8 billion Net he keeps: $200 million
Would you rather have $38 billion, or $200 million? Giving away a million dollars in order to not pay the 150,000 tax on it would be STUPID! You don't give away lots of money in order to avoid paying a much smaller amount in taxes.
From my understanding, typically when you get random noise from the environment, you aren't exactly sampling the -actual- stuff -- there may not be any sounds, for example. Quiet rooms are not unusual. What you do is what an anonymous coward mentioned - you have a sensor that reads the temperature as 72.7230283037 degrees F. It's not REALLY that accurate, the last few digits are basically random. Maybe the light sensor says 43.584723028 lux, plus or minus 3 lux. It has more -precision- than it has -accuracy-. The decimal part is bullshit, random.
Obviously the device has to convert the analog measurement into a digital number that the CPU can manipulate. It uses an analog-to-digital converter to do this. A typical ADC might convert the reading from a microphone into an 8-bit integer, ranging from 0 (approximately silent) to 255 (very loud). A 16-bit ADC gives a range from 0-65,535. Phone calls traditionally use an 8-bit ADC because that's sufficient for voice. Voice calls don't have to be hi-fi, especially after you remove the highest and lowest frequencies which actually hinder intelligibility.
It would be wasteful for the manufacturer to use a 24-bit ADC on the microphone if they're only going to use 8 bit samples for phone calls, so they may only use an 8-bit ADC. In that case, the range of loudness is only 0-255, with no decimals, meaning any quiet room will register 0. There are no extra extra digits with "random" values. If the manufacturer intended to use it as a source of randomness they could use a 24-bit or 32-bit ADC, knowing that the smallest bits will be roughly random.
Computers are actually -less- random that things like dice. To get a really good random number into a computer, one often connects it to some physical process. A camera pointed at a lava lamp is a well-known illustrative example. Computers are, at their heart, calculators, everything they do is reduced to simple math. And 1 + 1 always equals 2, every single time; there's nothing random about what a computer does. That's why when generating crypto keys it asks you to type on the keyboard and move the mouse - because the user can make random movements. The computer can't do random.
Further, you can inspect my dice, how do you inspect my rPi and know I haven't coded it to roll 8 more often than it should? You can look at -some- source code, but how do you know that's the source of the program I'm running? Confirming that is much more difficult than looking at a pair of dice.
That's simply not true at all. The maximum charge rate of any lithium ion cell, large or small, is about one hour to fully charge (plus a safety factor) . Two 50,00ma cells take exactly the same amount of time to charge as one 10,000ma cell.
You COULD use 7,000 cells at 3.7 volts each in series to get 25,800 volts. As you know, they run at 480V or so - the voltage of 120V lithium ion cells, as I originally said. So no, that's NOT a reason to use hundreds of little batteries rather than 100 much larger ones.
GP is also wrong, the maximum charge rate of lithium ion (in amps) is approximately equal to the capacity of the cell in amp-hours. That is to say, you can charge a lithium ion cell in an hour (plus safety factor) no matter what size it is. Two 500ma cells do NOT charge faster than one 1000ma cell. It takes an hour to charge, regardless of size.
I knew that power tools and laptops used 18650 cells, which are slightly larger than AA batteries. Given the hype about "Tesla's advanced battery technology", I'm pretty surprised to learn the Tesla battery is also simply 7,000 flashlight batteries.
I see that the Tesla battery pack weighs 1,200 pounds. Reducing weight greatly improves efficiency, handling, braking, and acceleration, meaning lighter weight is all around better. It seems a bit wasteful of weight and materials to have 7,000 metal casings around 7,000 tiny batteries, connected with thousands of connections, rather far fewer larger cells. I'm surprised they don't use perhaps 24 or 100 larger cells instead, thereby eliminating thousands of unnecessary casings and connections.
That's an interesting situation. I can certainly see a VPN with a port forward as being a reasonable solution, especially if you need a lot of storage. I'm assuming your ISP doesn't -also- offer IPv6 as well as the NAT IPv4.
SSH port forwarding is a fast, easy way to set up a VPN with port forwarding in one command. Even if you don't use it for this purpose, it's a good tool to have in your toolbox. It requires that you have a shell account internet-facing box, which might be a $5/month web hosting account. On Linux, Mac, Unix, BSD etc the command is: ssh -R 2121:localhost:21 ShellAccountHost.com
That means connecting to port 2121 on ShellAccountHost.com actually connects to port 21 on your local machine. On Windows, you can use puTTY to SSH, including port forwards: http://howto.ccs.neu.edu/howto... SSH port forwarding is very flexible and you can set up new ports with one quick command. That flexibility does mean the syntax takes some getting used to. For a long time I used a script like this on my Mac to make it accessible from an internet-facing IP:
while ssh -R 2222:localhost:22 ShellAccountHost.com do
sleep 30 done
If you have a recent iPad, there are Lightning flash drives that clip over the iPad.
A 50 GB "web hosting" account from Amerinoc.com provides FTP and http for $5-$10/month.
It is called the Rule of Capture in English, and has been recognized common law in British empire for hundreds of years. The first known written statute stating the principle was from Sparta, over a thousand years ago.
An interesting and well-known case on the application of Rule of Capture in America is Pierson v. Post.
Other courts have noticed that Pirate Bay is called PIRATE Bay, and it is designed and marketed for a specific purpose, an unlawful one. A gun just a priced of metal, right? Under laws the laws of most countries, it's a piece of metal with a specific intended use, and it's regulated based on that.
One might argue that copyright terms are too long in many countries; you could even make an argument against copyright protection at all (though the argument doesn't fair well in the face of facts). You can't make a coherent argument that Pirate Bay isn't for pirating - for violating the -legal- rights of others. That makes it inherently different from Google or any general search engine.
There are two distinct issues here. First, the common law says that if a person harvests a wild animal, plant, or other thing, it is his to eat or otherwise use. That's about ownership of an object.
A different, though related concept, is that the first -country- to start using some territory has a claim of sovereignty over that territory. Meaning essentially that the area becomes part of that country.
The treaty says that -sovereignty- rules are different in space, no country can claim the moon or another planet as part of their country, by colonizing it. The treaty's Article 2 reads, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to_national_appropriation_by_claim_of_sovereignty_, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
The treaty says that Mars wouldn't become part of the the USA if the US colonized it. It does NOT say that you can't go to Mars, pick up a rock, bring it home, and then own that rock. That's ownership of an object, not sovereignty over territory, and the treaty doesn't prohibit ownership of an object.
> How would you go about it? > Vpn? > Web hosted ftp? > Or something else?
What's the purpose, the goal? A $5 vps might be a solution, Google Drive might be. For being just like running an ftp server at home, dyndns solves the dynamic IP problem , sftp simplifies port forwarding and makes it more secure, but doesn't 100% solve the NAT issue. Some sort of vpn, possibly via an ssh port forward, to an external service may be needed if you must accept remote connctions conveniently. I suppose the actual purpose determines the best solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Insurers are in fact a major, major source of funding for safety initiatives of various kinds, because reducing -their- customers' claims reduces their costs. You may have noticed your home insurance company sends you stuff about fire safety and burglary prevention on a regular basis. This month, they probably sent you something about Christmas trees, Christmas lights, and fires. If you haven't seen this because you don't yet have your own home and car, perhaps go upstairs and ask your mom if they insurance bill is around somewhere. In the envelope you'll see safety tips.
You've probably heard of Underwriters Laboratories, the #1 organization in the US for ensuring products meet safety standards. "Underwriters" in the name means insurance underwriters.
So how does this all work with profits? Suppose in 2014 you bill $350 million in premiums, spend $270 million paying claims, $40 million on marketing, $10 million on customer service and overhead. You end up with a net profit of $30 million. With me so far?
Now suppose your customer outreach, telling YOUR CUSTOMERS how to be safer, reduces their claims by 5%. A 10% reduction in claims is $13.5 million. You've just increased your profit from $30 million to $43.5 million. So a modest 5% reduction in claims from your customers increased your profit by 45%.
Companies generally like to increase their profit by 45%, so that's why insurance companies are in fact a primary driver of safety in the US.
A file format is specification, yet you'll find that for 20 years all the Microsoft Office file formats were closed and patented.
Oracle argued that not only is a programming language proprietary, but even the specification of the environment which the language requires to run is proprietary. Microsoft may have done the same with COM at one point.
FYI, $38 billion is MORE than $162 million. You seem a bit confused on that point.
If you'd like to learn more about it, the term to google is "Fiduciary Duty". The officers are repreerntatives of the shareholders and legally obligated to act on behalf of the shareholders, not their own selfish interest (when the two conflict). Salaries of officers are typically set by the board, not by the officers themselves.
A clear example which can get an officer sent to prison is if they simply empty out the corporate bank account (which is the shareholders money) and head overseas, where the spend the money on themselves, as if it were their money.
You may see someone write that "corporations are legally required to put profit above all else." That misunderstanding stems from this rule that the officers and board members must put the well-being of shareholders above THEIR OWN interests. Otherwise, the "business judgement rule" applies. The rule says officers can do anything that they believe will be in the best interest of the business, including charitable gifts, promoting the well-being of employees, etc - and can't be held liable for being wrong. Under the business judgement rule, being wrong is okay, that happens; being selfish, benefiting yourself at company expense is illegal (other than board-approved compensation).
In very small mom-and-pop companies, sometimes the officers and the board are the same people , but that gets tricky because they're still supposed to act as if those were two separate roles.
One of the few things that will get an executive in trouble personally (other than typical crimes) is if they personally take money or otherwise gain at the expense of shareholders. A company president is allowed to pay everyone far too much if they choose to. They can give the company money away. The one thing they can't do is take the money for themselves. That's what he's being sued for, taking his shareholders' money for himself. So what defense can he possibly have for paying himself way too much ...
The company pays EVERYONE too much, which is perfectly allowable. That's pretty much the one and only way he can get out of the lawsuit for using company money to pay himself four times too much; he simply says "it's company policy to pay -everyone- a very high salary". That's a perfectly lawful policy, and it would be a good defense except the other lawyer will point out that he paid himself way too much well BEFORE that was company policy. As soon as the lawsuit is over he goes back to paying whatever he wants to pay.
It has a bonus effect if he's ordered to buy his other shareholder out, paying the other shareholder 50% of the company's fair value, if by spending the company's money it temporarily reduces that value.
You want a source for the fact that Warren Buffet bought Burlington Northern for $35 billion? Okay:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=buffet+bu...
For the fact that Buffet is a huge Obama donor?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=buffet+ob...
For the fact that Buffet's trains carry the bulk of the oil from where the pipeline ends?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=keystone+...
For some of Obama's donors getting millions and millions of taxpayer money and never producing a single solar panel?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solyndra
It's not that hard.
Here's what they don't like.
Oil flows through the first half of Keystone pipeline, where it is then loaded on trains, mostly owned by Burlington Northern, aka Warren Buffet. That's the same Warren Buffett who financed Obama' s campaigns. The plan was to finish the pipeline, which would be more efficient than transferring it to Buffet's trains.
Obama asked the EPA to look into the plan and the EPA said the net effect of finishing the pipeline would probably be slightly positive for the environment overall. Obama's benefactor, Warren Buffet, had just spent $35 billion buying Burlington Northern, which carries the oil, and he really didn't want to lose that investment. So Obama asked the State Department to issue a report saying the pipeline shouldn't be finished. Unfortunately for him, the State Department said the finishing the pipeline wouldn't be a problem.
Of course that doesn't help Warren Buffet, who owns the railroad amd perhaps the White House, so Obama told EPA and State to start over, and this time say no. They didn't really want to do that, so eventually Obama just declared thay the oil had to stay on Buffet's railroad, just because he says so.
Of course that increases the price of gas slightly for everyone, it's slightly worse for the environment, but the extra penny per gallon you pay for the gas goes to Warren Buffet, who in turn kicks some of it to democrat campaigns.
That's Obama's environmental policy. How could anyone oppose that?
Of course there are dozens of other examples. A favorite method is to have the government give a few hundred million of taxpayer money to some donor who say they plan to start a green business, such as solar-electric. The donors take salaries of $10 million / year , the "green company" donates some of the taxpayer money to democrats, and after a few years the money is gone. At that point the company declares bankruptcy. The donors get paid, the politicians get paid, and not a single solar panel is made. You don't see a problem here? Obama spent hundreds of millions of your dollars amd mine running that same scheme repeatedly.
It's not a desktop PC. Most rPi projects don't require any of those things. If you're not familiar with the concept, think of the computer that runs your car - it (or they) controls fuel / air mixture, transmission gearing, etc. You'll notice it has no monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. (The infotainment one may have a display.)
A typical application might be an autopilot in a model airplane. You attach a digital gyroscope and compass, maybe a tiny GPS module. You don't have a monitor and keyboard on your model plane. Another example would be a controller for a home security system. It reads the door sensors and triggers the siren if necessary. The UI is a keyfob or numbered keypad - there is no mouse, monitor, USB, etc. You stick the SD card into your desktop or laptop to program it, or if you for some reason don't have a computer, you can use one keyboard for all of your projects, with many different rPi Zero or similar boards.
Thanks for that.
To anyone who does information security, the fact that the Chinese government has the world's largest offensive infosec program is as obvious as the fact that the sun shines during the day time. Most attacks come from China, from behind the great firewall, with a large percentage of sophisticated attacks coming from IPs allocated to the Chinese military.
One particular facility is especially notable, it is a Chinese military installation that is listed as secret - its purpose is not published, a huge amount of attacks come from this facility, and they hire comp sci graduates. Now either ALL the compsci grads have had all of their computers controlled by Russian hackers for years and admins at this secret military facility haven't noticed gigabits of attacks constantly coming out of the facility, or they are the ones initiating the attacks.
It is not at all unusual for US networks to block all access from some very large IP ranges from China because these IPs have been a major, major source of attacks for -years-.
Speaking of government sources, if you speak infornally to the government people tasked with defense of US networks, chat with them in the smoking area by the loading dock, you'll find they are very afraid of what China is doing; the US is far outmatched in this area.
If you compare the US Navy vs China it is clear the US capability is far superior. For infosec (or"cyber"), it's the same but in reverse. You don't need top-secret clearance to see that the US Navy is the world's largest by far and the Chinese cyber command is by the world's largest.
The permeation rate of helium is roughly:
diffusion rate of seal material / thickness of material * time * pressure difference
The pressure difference term can be made approximately zero using a diaphragm to allow for changes in atmospheric pressure. Any value * 0 = 0, so permeation (leakage) is roughly zero.
Additionally, some seal materials work quite well. But again that's easy when the inside and outside are the same pressure - there's nothing causing the helium to exit, even if it could pass through easily.
> 1) He doesn't care about helping people: Start a charity to funnel money into and avoid as much taxes as possible.
This is his stock. He's already paying 40% income tax plus 15% double FICA on his -salary- either way. The stock income is long term capital gains, taxed at 15%. Which means that for every $100 he gives away, he saves $15 on his taxes.
So let's do the math. He could either:
Gross gain: $45 billion
Tax: $7 billion
Net he keeps: $38 billion
Or:
Gross gain: $45 billion
Give away: $44.8 billion
Net he keeps: $200 million
Would you rather have $38 billion, or $200 million?
Giving away a million dollars in order to not pay the 150,000 tax on it would be STUPID! You don't give away lots of money in order to avoid paying a much smaller amount in taxes.
From my understanding, typically when you get random noise from the environment, you aren't exactly sampling the -actual- stuff -- there may not be any sounds, for example. Quiet rooms are not unusual. What you do is what an anonymous coward mentioned - you have a sensor that reads the temperature as 72.7230283037 degrees F. It's not REALLY that accurate, the last few digits are basically random. Maybe the light sensor says 43.584723028 lux, plus or minus 3 lux. It has more -precision- than it has -accuracy-. The decimal part is bullshit, random.
Obviously the device has to convert the analog measurement into a digital number that the CPU can manipulate. It uses an analog-to-digital converter to do this. A typical ADC might convert the reading from a microphone into an 8-bit integer, ranging from 0 (approximately silent) to 255 (very loud). A 16-bit ADC gives a range from 0-65,535. Phone calls traditionally use an 8-bit ADC because that's sufficient for voice. Voice calls don't have to be hi-fi, especially after you remove the highest and lowest frequencies which actually hinder intelligibility.
It would be wasteful for the manufacturer to use a 24-bit ADC on the microphone if they're only going to use 8 bit samples for phone calls, so they may only use an 8-bit ADC. In that case, the range of loudness is only 0-255, with no decimals, meaning any quiet room will register 0. There are no extra extra digits with "random" values. If the manufacturer intended to use it as a source of randomness they could use a 24-bit or 32-bit ADC, knowing that the smallest bits will be roughly random.
See the comment directly above yours, http://science.slashdot.org/co...
Computers are actually -less- random that things like dice. To get a really good random number into a computer, one often connects it to some physical process. A camera pointed at a lava lamp is a well-known illustrative example. Computers are, at their heart, calculators, everything they do is reduced to simple math. And 1 + 1 always equals 2, every single time; there's nothing random about what a computer does. That's why when generating crypto keys it asks you to type on the keyboard and move the mouse - because the user can make random movements. The computer can't do random.
Further, you can inspect my dice, how do you inspect my rPi and know I haven't coded it to roll 8 more often than it should? You can look at -some- source code, but how do you know that's the source of the program I'm running? Confirming that is much more difficult than looking at a pair of dice.
Perhaps you should look up the word "number". 24 is a number, 120 is a number. 7000 is an excessively high and wasteful number.
If you remove the line feeds, you get PRI*HTTP/2.0SM.
That's simply not true at all. The maximum charge rate of any lithium ion cell, large or small, is about one hour to fully charge (plus a safety factor) . Two 50,00ma cells take exactly the same amount of time to charge as one 10,000ma cell.
You COULD use 7,000 cells at 3.7 volts each in series to get 25,800 volts. As you know, they run at 480V or so - the voltage of 120V lithium ion cells, as I originally said. So no, that's NOT a reason to use hundreds of little batteries rather than 100 much larger ones.
GP is also wrong, the maximum charge rate of lithium ion (in amps) is approximately equal to the capacity of the cell in amp-hours. That is to say, you can charge a lithium ion cell in an hour (plus safety factor) no matter what size it is. Two 500ma cells do NOT charge faster than one 1000ma cell. It takes an hour to charge, regardless of size.
I knew that power tools and laptops used 18650 cells, which are slightly larger than AA batteries. Given the hype about "Tesla's advanced battery technology", I'm pretty surprised to learn the Tesla battery is also simply 7,000 flashlight batteries.
I see that the Tesla battery pack weighs 1,200 pounds. Reducing weight greatly improves efficiency, handling, braking, and acceleration, meaning lighter weight is all around better. It seems a bit wasteful of weight and materials to have 7,000 metal casings around 7,000 tiny batteries, connected with thousands of connections, rather far fewer larger cells. I'm surprised they don't use perhaps 24 or 100 larger cells instead, thereby eliminating thousands of unnecessary casings and connections.
> do we now live in a dictatorship, much like Russia, wherein one tyrant pretty essentially crafts all the rules?
Yes.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/...
That's an interesting situation. I can certainly see a VPN with a port forward as being a reasonable solution, especially if you need a lot of storage. I'm assuming your ISP doesn't -also- offer IPv6 as well as the NAT IPv4.
SSH port forwarding is a fast, easy way to set up a VPN with port forwarding in one command. Even if you don't use it for this purpose, it's a good tool to have in your toolbox. It requires that you have a shell account internet-facing box, which might be a $5/month web hosting account. On Linux, Mac, Unix, BSD etc the command is:
ssh -R 2121:localhost:21 ShellAccountHost.com
That means connecting to port 2121 on ShellAccountHost.com actually connects to port 21 on your local machine. On Windows, you can use puTTY to SSH, including port forwards:
http://howto.ccs.neu.edu/howto...
SSH port forwarding is very flexible and you can set up new ports with one quick command. That flexibility does mean the syntax takes some getting used to. For a long time I used a script like this on my Mac to make it accessible from an internet-facing IP:
while ssh -R 2222:localhost:22 ShellAccountHost.com
do
sleep 30
done
If you have a recent iPad, there are Lightning flash drives that clip over the iPad.
A 50 GB "web hosting" account from Amerinoc.com provides FTP and http for $5-$10/month.
It is called the Rule of Capture in English, and has been recognized common law in British empire for hundreds of years. The first known written statute stating the principle was from Sparta, over a thousand years ago.
An interesting and well-known case on the application of Rule of Capture in America is Pierson v. Post.
Other courts have noticed that Pirate Bay is called PIRATE Bay, and it is designed and marketed for a specific purpose, an unlawful one. A gun just a priced of metal, right? Under laws the laws of most countries, it's a piece of metal with a specific intended use, and it's regulated based on that.
One might argue that copyright terms are too long in many countries; you could even make an argument against copyright protection at all (though the argument doesn't fair well in the face of facts). You can't make a coherent argument that Pirate Bay isn't for pirating - for violating the -legal- rights of others. That makes it inherently different from Google or any general search engine.
There are two distinct issues here. First, the common law says that if a person harvests a wild animal, plant, or other thing, it is his to eat or otherwise use. That's about ownership of an object.
A different, though related concept, is that the first -country- to start using some territory has a claim of sovereignty over that territory. Meaning essentially that the area becomes part of that country.
The treaty says that -sovereignty- rules are different in space, no country can claim the moon or another planet as part of their country, by colonizing it. The treaty's Article 2 reads, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to_national_appropriation_by_claim_of_sovereignty_, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
The treaty says that Mars wouldn't become part of the the USA if the US colonized it. It does NOT say that you can't go to Mars, pick up a rock, bring it home, and then own that rock. That's ownership of an object, not sovereignty over territory, and the treaty doesn't prohibit ownership of an object.
> How would you go about it?
> Vpn?
> Web hosted ftp?
> Or something else?
What's the purpose, the goal? A $5 vps might be a solution, Google Drive might be. For being just like running an ftp server at home, dyndns solves the dynamic IP problem , sftp simplifies port forwarding and makes it more secure, but doesn't 100% solve the NAT issue. Some sort of vpn, possibly via an ssh port forward, to an external service may be needed if you must accept remote connctions conveniently. I suppose the actual purpose determines the best solution.