No. And honestly I don't want Netflix for my phone. For a tablet I can see it but not on a phone for me. Maybe if my phone has HDMI but then my BluRay player, two of my game consoles, and laptop can all stream NetFlix to my TV now. What really needs to happen to be honest is for an internet only show to take off big time. To become mainstream. Some writer, producer and actors will have to create a show that is only available for streaming and or download that becomes mainstream. Then some smart tech company will have to sponsor it and use it for advertising. Frankly I am I could see Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and or Apple all doing that. Think about how cheap the sets are for say Big Bang are. Video production costs have really dropped and now distribution is cheap. Only when traditional media companies are threatened will they give in an adapt. In many ways it is like what happened with software. Believe it or not there was a time when just a simple word processor like WordStar and WordPerfect or spreadsheet like Lotus 123 cost several hundreds of dollars. Now even Microsoft offers cheap versions of Office.
Only maybe but... 1. It doesn't exist yet. 2. It goes totaly counter your "don't think of it as replacing gas stations" statment. 3. what cost? The other problem is also range. I want at least a 300 mile range. Simple reason is that I live in Florida and I may have to evacuate from a Hurricane again. I did it for Frances. It was a CAT 5 when we left thank goodness it weakened to a cat 2 before it hit the state. Imagine tens of thousands of car stranded without batteries and all trying to recharge with a hurricane bearing down on the state. It was bad enough with gasoline and more than a few people got stranded. Same thing happened when Huston TX was in the crosshairs and was evacuated. And imagine this simple issue. You drive your leaf home and plug it in. Your child is at a friends house and gets hurt and you are called to get their as soon as possible. Only thing is that the Hospital and or friends home is too far to get on what little charge you have in your car! Or you can get their but not get back home! Again it is that very lack of flexibility that is the problem and will be for a very long time. And it is that lack of flexibility that the Volt addresses. It really is the best of both worlds for a large number of users. Your other choice really is to have two cars in every family. I could see that working where Dad has a Leaf to commute to and from work and mom has a minivan, crossover, station wagon, or even an SUV as a second car. Right now when I drive to Texas or Orlando to vist family I only need to stop to refuel once every 300 or so miles. It takes a few minutes to refuel and be on my way. Even with the batter swap if you build an entire infrastructure to support it "and blowing your whole distributed not centralized model to pieces." I do not see it as being as cheap and as fast as refueling. Now make the assumption that the Volt is the way to go. My wife and I would use zero gas probably 5 days a week. Our commute to work is within the EV range of the Volt. My Saturday trip to see my parents is the only time we would use gas most weeks. And Friday night when my wife and I go out to dinner and maybe a movie might be outside of EV range on the Volt. We would also have the range on the gas motor to go to Orlando to see my brother or once a year to Texas to see my wifes family. Now imagine even greener versions of the volt. Maybe a flex fuel that can use "Ethanol" Yes I know that is of questionable value at this time from a green point of view but still. Or maybe one that uses natural gas? Or a diesel that uses bio diesel when available. Or maybe even a true flex fuel version that uses a micro gas turbine that will burn just about any fuel? People will not use an inferior replacement if they have a choice. For many users EVs are still inferior to IC when it comes to range and convenience which are two huge factors. The other issue is longevity. A well maintained modern IC car can last 200,000+ miles. Well over 100,000 is now common. Battery pack replacement cost could be the big limiting factor on modern car life. Will they be worth replacing? Then figure in all the other wear items like bushings, braking systems, bearings, body corrosion, and even eventually motor failure just how long will an EV be worth keeping on the road long? And yes and IC engine can be very expensive to replace and that is often the limit on a car today but today they do last a very long time.
Every outlet is a potential "gas station." Except that it takes 8 hours to fill your tank. let's see my wife's family is 1200 miles away so it would take 12 days to driver there in an EV that can get 100 miles out of a charge. If we slept and at the recharging cycles I guess in theory we could make it in just four days vs one long and one short day.... Yeaaa.... For a commuter vehicle it works but I would have to have two cars since on the weekends I have to drive over 100miles to he help a sick family member and then run errands for them. That is still the weakness. A lack of flexibility.
Actually no. The ideal RPM would be at max torque. That is where an engine is at it's most efficient, but you would want that to be at WOT as well and you will have the issue that you will have to be careful to match your compression ratio to the fuel if it is a petrol spark engine since it will also be where you are at peak combustion chamber pressure. Of course an other solution would be to remove the throttle plate and use EGR to reduce the O2 in the mixture to control the power output. Of course I do love how people on Slashdot will voice their opinion on this subject. That lesson on the 4 stroke engine they gave you in 4th grade really doesn't cut it in the real world. But then the comments I see from people on Slashdot that have never written any code about programing should have fore warned me.
Actually I believe that if you are going over 70 MPH and the battery is below X then the motor will directly drive the wheels. Which is uses less fuel than running a genset that powers and electric motor because you have less conversion loss. So no unless the battery is low you should be on battery. Thing is that I don't think you will get 100 miles out of a leaf at 70+ MPH anyway. The faster you shorter the range of of an electric car or a gas car for that matter.
Actually that was what bothered me the most. I didn't think there was a chance in heck that a sub could have gotten that close the the US that wasn't US. I also didn't think that there was a chance that the US would launch with out any NOTAMs. What bugged me was that no one not the FAA not the DOD could give a fast answer to what it was.
Yet they didn't say. It wasn't a missile or a an airliners. They said we are investigating. Back when we had SAGE I would bet that the USAF would have flat out told you exactly what it was.
Honestly the documentation and the signed letter from Steve Jobs is probably the big money on this item. It has a well documented history which also helps. Let's face it. Odds are that you could build an exact duplicate of an Apple I with a little effort. It is the documentation that will drive collectors batty.
I can see good reasons to migrate to Windows 7. It is actually a better OS then XP and performs well on old machines. The math is pretty simple. You will need to migrate sooner or later.. It is foolish to bring in new machines with XP unless you have some mission critical XP only software. If so you are just waiting for a world of pain. Start looking for a replacement. It is much easier to deal with on version of Windows and not two or three. Unless you have a real need to keep machines with compatibility testing. I would also ask why Fedora? This is in a production environment. If you are going to use Linux on the desktop I would go for Ubuntu LTS or CentOS. Unless your lLinux users are going to be mostly self supporting developers that demand to be on the bleeding edge. In a production environment stable is best. But person may have other requirements of which I am not aware.
Not always I can tell you that a shuttle launch looks a lot like that was shown. ICBM test flights and Probably SLBM test flights will often corkscrew early in flight to eat up some range. What no one is getting is that this almost as worrisome as if it was a missile. That plane was coming into the US from from the Pacific Ocean. It crossed into US airspace from outside US airspace. Yes I know that Hawaii is part of the US but our airspace doesn't extend the entire distance. So why did it take the DOD and FAA so long to find out what it was. I mean really they knew what time the video was taken so why couldn't they just punch up it was FLTxxx at FLx? That is what worries me. Does the US have air defense to speak of?
True but to call it a hit is also not correct. I mean this is small launch when you consider that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on ads, this is the 7 major version of the OS, and it is backed by the biggest tech company in the world. I would say that form Microsoft anything short of a hit is very close to a flop. They may pull it out but I do not here any buzz about WP7
Please there was Unix before Slackware for the PC. And no security wasn't a feature that sold or was even much of a worry even in 93. Security as a feature that sold in the consumer space? Windows 95, 98, ME all show clearly that it wasn't. Windows 2000 and XP where big leaps forward. Vista is ME 2.0 and will soon be forgotten. Seven is much better. BTW Unix in 93 also was not all that secure. No ACLs and telnet and FTP where commonly used and SSH wasn't even released until 1995! and then it took a while to catch on. As I said it wasn't really a feature worth putting any effort into until recently for the consumer space. Linux is not strong even now in the consumer space outside of embedded applications. So yes I stand by every word.
Can do custom ring tones? Multitask? Cut n paste? How many apps in the store? Sounds like a first gen product to me. And that is what is so odd. Notice the name Windows Phone 7! This isn't a first gen Windows mobile phone it is the 7th. Frankly it does seem to me too little too late. Microsoft has been in the Phone market too long to have any excuses about missing features.
I do agree with number 2. Not so much on number 1. Yes if you run a program and then give it admin access to your system it is not a software security issue. It is a user IQ issue.
You are confusing a mathematically correct program one that will do the "right thing" no matter what the input is. What a correct program will do is only behave in a deterministic way. And example would be is if Explorer was a "correct" program and you deleted some registry keys it would exit with an error message. If a program finds any input state that is outside of a specified range and that can not be healed should terminate with an error condition. That if the OS was also "correct". The real problem becomes one of cost. Very few applications are worth the cost of doing all the work to make it "correct". You will see in aerospace applications but almost no where else. And even FOSS software has cost. The programmers will often pay a large amount of the cost themselves. But even the users will have to pay some of the cost in that it will take a lot longer to get the software and any new features.
The other cost is that the system must be "correct" from top to bottom. That is why the Shuttle doesn't use an I7 and why it takes so long and costs so much to get software and hardware upgraded in those type of systems.
What? You have taken two theories that you do not really understand and have mixed them up as bad as that stupid book Zen of Quantum Physics. "Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision." That has nothing to do with Godel's theorem except that both are taken as proof that the Universe is not deterministic. They are not in any other way related
And Godel does not imply that you can not prove that a program is correct. In fact if you read the wikipedia links you posted you would see that.
Security doesn't sell in the consumer market. Mainframe and Minicomputer OSs and applications tended to be very secure. VMS and IBMs OS where and are very secure. PCs come from the microcomputer world. Security was never an issue with them. I mean they where single users systems and almost never networked. Even when you had Networks they tended to be Lans. It is the mind set that security is an after thought. Why should a picture viewing program ever worry about an exploit?
On the PC side it just was never a "feature" worth putting any effort into until recently.
Actually they want to put these close to the equator. That area of the sea is pretty much free of cyclonic storms and rogue waves. Take a look at the tracks of cyclonic storms and you will see that is about the safest place to be.
Wikipedia I wouldn't really count on this case. Notice the other article describes the Trident as an ICBM range SLBM but not as an ICBM alone. Yes for the average person to say that it is an ICBM is no big deal but for an expert to use that term is wrong. Think about the very name. Intercontinental means between continents. The actual term SLBM has also changed over the years. When the Polaris was first produced the idea was to also mount them on ships as well. The USS Long Beach had mounts for Polaris launch tubes. SLBM orignaly stood for Sea Launched Balistic Missile but when the US decided to only mount them on Subs the name was changed.
Key to the technically correct term is the arm control agreements. While land based missiles where counted based on range. In the arms control talks IRBMs and SRBMs where not counted or restricted at all in the SALT I and SALT II talks. But all SLBMs where counted no matter what range they had. The reason being that because they could be sailed up to a coast line even a 600 mile range missile was a strategic weapon. Even in the latest arms control agreements SLBMs are in a different class then ICBMs. SLBMs are allowed to carry MIRVs while ICBMs are not. So yes you can be technically correct and say that the Trident is an ICBM ranged SLBM but it is technically incorrect to call it an ICBM.
And yes this is getting down in the extremely technical nitpicky range. But when someone is putting out "expert opinions" on the news they better have every nit picked or I just do not trust them as a source.
No a missile is. a. a weapon that has both guidance and propulsion. or b. Any thrown weapon. That would include the use of bow or sling.
In this specific case the bomb was dropped not thrown so it was till not a missile.
Now had it been released using a LABS maneuver you might possible call it a missile but the bomb in this case was dropped. So no you fail in your attempt to join the literal net. I suggest you work harder and you may get to the level of humorless nitpicking.
Slashdot Mirror
umm.. I doubt that Hindenburg had deck chairs.
It's shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Thank you from the literal net.
No.
And honestly I don't want Netflix for my phone. For a tablet I can see it but not on a phone for me. Maybe if my phone has HDMI but then my BluRay player, two of my game consoles, and laptop can all stream NetFlix to my TV now.
What really needs to happen to be honest is for an internet only show to take off big time. To become mainstream. Some writer, producer and actors will have to create a show that is only available for streaming and or download that becomes mainstream. Then some smart tech company will have to sponsor it and use it for advertising. Frankly I am I could see Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and or Apple all doing that. Think about how cheap the sets are for say Big Bang are. Video production costs have really dropped and now distribution is cheap.
Only when traditional media companies are threatened will they give in an adapt.
In many ways it is like what happened with software. Believe it or not there was a time when just a simple word processor like WordStar and WordPerfect or spreadsheet like Lotus 123 cost several hundreds of dollars. Now even Microsoft offers cheap versions of Office.
Only maybe but...
1. It doesn't exist yet.
2. It goes totaly counter your "don't think of it as replacing gas stations" statment.
3. what cost?
The other problem is also range. I want at least a 300 mile range. Simple reason is that I live in Florida and I may have to evacuate from a Hurricane again.
I did it for Frances. It was a CAT 5 when we left thank goodness it weakened to a cat 2 before it hit the state.
Imagine tens of thousands of car stranded without batteries and all trying to recharge with a hurricane bearing down on the state.
It was bad enough with gasoline and more than a few people got stranded.
Same thing happened when Huston TX was in the crosshairs and was evacuated.
And imagine this simple issue. You drive your leaf home and plug it in. Your child is at a friends house and gets hurt and you are called to get their as soon as possible. Only thing is that the Hospital and or friends home is too far to get on what little charge you have in your car!
Or you can get their but not get back home!
Again it is that very lack of flexibility that is the problem and will be for a very long time.
And it is that lack of flexibility that the Volt addresses. It really is the best of both worlds for a large number of users. Your other choice really is to have two cars in every family. I could see that working where Dad has a Leaf to commute to and from work and mom has a minivan, crossover, station wagon, or even an SUV as a second car.
Right now when I drive to Texas or Orlando to vist family I only need to stop to refuel once every 300 or so miles. It takes a few minutes to refuel and be on my way. Even with the batter swap if you build an entire infrastructure to support it "and blowing your whole distributed not centralized model to pieces." I do not see it as being as cheap and as fast as refueling.
Now make the assumption that the Volt is the way to go.
My wife and I would use zero gas probably 5 days a week. Our commute to work is within the EV range of the Volt.
My Saturday trip to see my parents is the only time we would use gas most weeks. And Friday night when my wife and I go out to dinner and maybe a movie might be outside of EV range on the Volt.
We would also have the range on the gas motor to go to Orlando to see my brother or once a year to Texas to see my wifes family.
Now imagine even greener versions of the volt. Maybe a flex fuel that can use "Ethanol" Yes I know that is of questionable value at this time from a green point of view but still.
Or maybe one that uses natural gas?
Or a diesel that uses bio diesel when available.
Or maybe even a true flex fuel version that uses a micro gas turbine that will burn just about any fuel?
People will not use an inferior replacement if they have a choice. For many users EVs are still inferior to IC when it comes to range and convenience which are two huge factors.
The other issue is longevity. A well maintained modern IC car can last 200,000+ miles. Well over 100,000 is now common.
Battery pack replacement cost could be the big limiting factor on modern car life.
Will they be worth replacing? Then figure in all the other wear items like bushings, braking systems, bearings, body corrosion, and even eventually motor failure just how long will an EV be worth keeping on the road long?
And yes and IC engine can be very expensive to replace and that is often the limit on a car today but today they do last a very long time.
Every outlet is a potential "gas station."
Except that it takes 8 hours to fill your tank.
let's see my wife's family is 1200 miles away so it would take 12 days to driver there in an EV that can get 100 miles out of a charge. If we slept and at the recharging cycles I guess in theory we could make it in just four days vs one long and one short day....
Yeaaa....
For a commuter vehicle it works but I would have to have two cars since on the weekends I have to drive over 100miles to he help a sick family member and then run errands for them.
That is still the weakness. A lack of flexibility.
Actually no.
The ideal RPM would be at max torque. That is where an engine is at it's most efficient, but you would want that to be at WOT as well and you will have the issue that you will have to be careful to match your compression ratio to the fuel if it is a petrol spark engine since it will also be where you are at peak combustion chamber pressure.
Of course an other solution would be to remove the throttle plate and use EGR to reduce the O2 in the mixture to control the power output.
Of course I do love how people on Slashdot will voice their opinion on this subject. That lesson on the 4 stroke engine they gave you in 4th grade really doesn't cut it in the real world.
But then the comments I see from people on Slashdot that have never written any code about programing should have fore warned me.
Actually I believe that if you are going over 70 MPH and the battery is below X then the motor will directly drive the wheels.
Which is uses less fuel than running a genset that powers and electric motor because you have less conversion loss.
So no unless the battery is low you should be on battery.
Thing is that I don't think you will get 100 miles out of a leaf at 70+ MPH anyway.
The faster you shorter the range of of an electric car or a gas car for that matter.
Actually that was what bothered me the most. I didn't think there was a chance in heck that a sub could have gotten that close the the US that wasn't US.
I also didn't think that there was a chance that the US would launch with out any NOTAMs.
What bugged me was that no one not the FAA not the DOD could give a fast answer to what it was.
Yet they didn't say. It wasn't a missile or a an airliners. They said we are investigating. Back when we had SAGE I would bet that the USAF would have flat out told you exactly what it was.
How about Contiki instead?
Honestly the documentation and the signed letter from Steve Jobs is probably the big money on this item. It has a well documented history which also helps.
Let's face it. Odds are that you could build an exact duplicate of an Apple I with a little effort. It is the documentation that will drive collectors batty.
But if you don't already like S60 you will probably hate the N8.
It is one of the love hate type of things
I can see good reasons to migrate to Windows 7. It is actually a better OS then XP and performs well on old machines. The math is pretty simple. You will need to migrate sooner or later.. It is foolish to bring in new machines with XP unless you have some mission critical XP only software. If so you are just waiting for a world of pain. Start looking for a replacement.
It is much easier to deal with on version of Windows and not two or three.
Unless you have a real need to keep machines with compatibility testing.
I would also ask why Fedora? This is in a production environment. If you are going to use Linux on the desktop I would go for Ubuntu LTS or CentOS. Unless your lLinux users are going to be mostly self supporting developers that demand to be on the bleeding edge. In a production environment stable is best. But person may have other requirements of which I am not aware.
Not always I can tell you that a shuttle launch looks a lot like that was shown. ICBM test flights and Probably SLBM test flights will often corkscrew early in flight to eat up some range.
What no one is getting is that this almost as worrisome as if it was a missile.
That plane was coming into the US from from the Pacific Ocean. It crossed into US airspace from outside US airspace. Yes I know that Hawaii is part of the US but our airspace doesn't extend the entire distance.
So why did it take the DOD and FAA so long to find out what it was. I mean really they knew what time the video was taken so why couldn't they just punch up it was FLTxxx at FLx?
That is what worries me. Does the US have air defense to speak of?
True but to call it a hit is also not correct.
I mean this is small launch when you consider that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on ads, this is the 7 major version of the OS, and it is backed by the biggest tech company in the world.
I would say that form Microsoft anything short of a hit is very close to a flop. They may pull it out but I do not here any buzz about WP7
Please there was Unix before Slackware for the PC. And no security wasn't a feature that sold or was even much of a worry even in 93.
Security as a feature that sold in the consumer space? Windows 95, 98, ME all show clearly that it wasn't. Windows 2000 and XP where big leaps forward. Vista is ME 2.0 and will soon be forgotten. Seven is much better.
BTW Unix in 93 also was not all that secure. No ACLs and telnet and FTP where commonly used and SSH wasn't even released until 1995! and then it took a while to catch on.
As I said it wasn't really a feature worth putting any effort into until recently for the consumer space.
Linux is not strong even now in the consumer space outside of embedded applications.
So yes I stand by every word.
Can do custom ring tones? Multitask? Cut n paste? How many apps in the store?
Sounds like a first gen product to me.
And that is what is so odd. Notice the name Windows Phone 7! This isn't a first gen Windows mobile phone it is the 7th.
Frankly it does seem to me too little too late. Microsoft has been in the Phone market too long to have any excuses about missing features.
I do agree with number 2.
Not so much on number 1.
Yes if you run a program and then give it admin access to your system it is not a software security issue. It is a user IQ issue.
You are confusing a mathematically correct program one that will do the "right thing" no matter what the input is.
What a correct program will do is only behave in a deterministic way.
And example would be is if Explorer was a "correct" program and you deleted some registry keys it would exit with an error message. If a program finds any input state that is outside of a specified range and that can not be healed should terminate with an error condition. That if the OS was also "correct".
The real problem becomes one of cost. Very few applications are worth the cost of doing all the work to make it "correct". You will see in aerospace applications but almost no where else.
And even FOSS software has cost. The programmers will often pay a large amount of the cost themselves. But even the users will have to pay some of the cost in that it will take a lot longer to get the software and any new features.
The other cost is that the system must be "correct" from top to bottom. That is why the Shuttle doesn't use an I7 and why it takes so long and costs so much to get software and hardware upgraded in those type of systems.
What?
You have taken two theories that you do not really understand and have mixed them up as bad as that stupid book Zen of Quantum Physics.
"Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision."
That has nothing to do with Godel's theorem except that both are taken as proof that the Universe is not deterministic. They are not in any other way related
And Godel does not imply that you can not prove that a program is correct. In fact if you read the wikipedia links you posted you would see that.
Programming is math. There really are no secrets in math. It is the same everywhere.
Security doesn't sell in the consumer market.
Mainframe and Minicomputer OSs and applications tended to be very secure. VMS and IBMs OS where and are very secure. PCs come from the microcomputer world. Security was never an issue with them. I mean they where single users systems and almost never networked. Even when you had Networks they tended to be Lans.
It is the mind set that security is an after thought. Why should a picture viewing program ever worry about an exploit?
On the PC side it just was never a "feature" worth putting any effort into until recently.
Actually they want to put these close to the equator. That area of the sea is pretty much free of cyclonic storms and rogue waves.
Take a look at the tracks of cyclonic storms and you will see that is about the safest place to be.
I suggest you become more discriminating in your selection of men. I mean that would just be rude to say to a lady.
Wikipedia I wouldn't really count on this case.
Notice the other article describes the Trident as an ICBM range SLBM but not as an ICBM alone.
Yes for the average person to say that it is an ICBM is no big deal but for an expert to use that term is wrong.
Think about the very name. Intercontinental means between continents.
The actual term SLBM has also changed over the years. When the Polaris was first produced the idea was to also mount them on ships as well. The USS Long Beach had mounts for Polaris launch tubes. SLBM orignaly stood for Sea Launched Balistic Missile but when the US decided to only mount them on Subs the name was changed.
Key to the technically correct term is the arm control agreements.
While land based missiles where counted based on range. In the arms control talks IRBMs and SRBMs where not counted or restricted at all in the SALT I and SALT II talks.
But all SLBMs where counted no matter what range they had.
The reason being that because they could be sailed up to a coast line even a 600 mile range missile was a strategic weapon.
Even in the latest arms control agreements SLBMs are in a different class then ICBMs.
SLBMs are allowed to carry MIRVs while ICBMs are not.
So yes you can be technically correct and say that the Trident is an ICBM ranged SLBM but it is technically incorrect to call it an ICBM.
And yes this is getting down in the extremely technical nitpicky range.
But when someone is putting out "expert opinions" on the news they better have every nit picked or I just do not trust them as a source.
No a missile is.
a. a weapon that has both guidance and propulsion.
or
b. Any thrown weapon. That would include the use of bow or sling.
In this specific case the bomb was dropped not thrown so it was till not a missile.
Now had it been released using a LABS maneuver you might possible call it a missile but the bomb in this case was dropped.
So no you fail in your attempt to join the literal net.
I suggest you work harder and you may get to the level of humorless nitpicking.