It's not going to get colder. You might want to study thermodynamics a bit!
To turn water into hydrogen + oxygen takes energy input. The huge deal with this announcement is that supposedly a larger percentage of that energy is used to split it, rather than turning *INTO* waste heat.
If your water-splitter got colder then you are using more than 100% of the input energy. Such a technology would have a lot larger implications than just making solar energy cheaper!
You are making the assumption that "one nameplate" costs exactly the same for all types of power generation. Perhaps solar costs more, perhaps less, for a "namepate" (a weird term I have never seen before). It does not confirm or deny your argument.
Also your capacities for solar are comparing them to how much energy they would generate if they faced the sun at a right angle for 24 hours a day. You might as well mark the capacity of a coal plant based on the potential energy of every C+H bond in the coal, not on what is expected to be burnt.
No, M$ is *not* a different way to write Multiple Sclerosis or Mississippi or Master of Science or Morgan Stanley.
It is a common way to abbreviate Microsoft to avoid ambiguity with these others.
It is also entertaining because it makes people with the mentality of 12 year olds go "oh you are so CHILDISH! CHILDISH! CHILDISH because I say so. PBBBBBTTTT! WAAAH I am soooo KOOOL because I said you are "CHILDISH!!!!!"""" Look in the mirror for an example.
Why is this argument actually being presented? It is stupid beyond belief!
So "using a component of IE" makes any program "IE"? Every single program that uses this rendering engine provided by Microsoft is IE? The program I can write right now that calls this rendering engine is therefore IE? Oh my god, I seem to have violated Microsoft's trademark and I can't get out of it, because my program "is IE" by your definition!
You can and should be able to remove the blue E from the desktop. Saying that "some of the code it uses remains so therefore it can't be removed" would mean you can't remove *anything* from the desktop, since they all call strlen() and other stuff that will still remain!
Actually it does seem MAD works with unreasonable people. Some of the leaders of the Soviet Union were not exactly reasonable or sane! That might be true of some people in power in the USA, too. Yet we avoided nuking each other because we knew the result is that both would be nuked. Even earlier we avoided gassing or biological weapons throughout the 20th century, despite the fact that three of the four powers (and maybe you could count west's saturation bombing too) demonstrated genocidal insanity to those who could not respond in kind.
I believe the GP is suggesting that the voter gets some kind of hash of his and all previous votes, which they can check later on line to see if their hash is still there. The hash cannot be used to figure out what his votes were.
I'm not really clear on exactly how of if this would work. A compromised machine could always print out a hash that matches the changed vote. Even if it works I am unsure how you can prove all the hashes without at least being able to figure out the votes that went from one hash to the next, are correct and no extras were inserted.
This seems to be an attempt to reuse the "Microsoft tax" name.
It really isn't accurate, as what is being described is an inflated price on Apple's own products. "Apple markup" would be more accurate.
The "Microsoft tax" is slang for the fact that if you buy a typical PC without an operating system, the manufacturer has already paid for a Windows license for that machine (due to volume licensing) and they distribute that cost into the price of all machines. In effect when you buy the machine, some of your money goes to Microsoft even though you got nothing from them, thus the idea of "tax" like a "sales tax" which goes to the state even though the object you bought does not actually contain something made by the state.
It was Hoots the Owl who sang "A Cookie Is a Sometimes Food" to Cookie Monster. At the end of the song, Cookie Monster declared, "NOW is sometimes!" and gobbled the cookie anyway.
This is incorrect. Companies and workers at companies AVOID looking at patents, and make sure they can prove they did not look at them. Knowingly violating a patent has much worse implications that unknowingly doing so.
I would like to see them drop all the STL and boost duplication and switch to standards as much as possible.
They don't have to drop MOC but it would be nice if they tried to figure out an equivalent that uses C++0x and macros.
The strings are not byte strings and therefore useless. This makes handling of UTF-8 and thus modern Unicode impossible because (like it or not) UTF-8 can contain invalid sequences and it is impossible to losslessly translate these to "wchar" or whatever crap they are using. It also makes things tremendously slow because any analysis of UTF-8 requires a malloc & copy (with many tests) before their string functions can be used. UTF-16 has no advantages over UTF-8, it is also variable-sized and can have invalid sequences (well it has a trivial advantage on Windows as many Windows api's want it, however I suspect the overhead of translation would be reduced by only translating at the moment the Windows call is done, rather than for every single string in the world! Also it would allow invalid sequences to throw errors at a much more sensible moment, I want an invalid filename to fail to open the file, not throw an error when I read it from the database!)
Huh? Without violating the LGPL you can take an LGPL library, make some changes, and release the result under the GPL. This is explicity allowed by the license. In fact it is required if the code you add is GPL, you cannot release the result as LGPL.
Nonsense. The RMS argument about libraries applies to Qt.
If Qt was GPL then it could not be used by non-GPL applications.
Now if Qt was the only toolkit in existence then this might do what RMS wants, which is force all software that needs a toolkit to be GPL.
However Qt is NOT the only toolkit in existence, and the desire to make non-GPL programs means there would be huge incentive to use something else. This other thing would be learned by programmers and thus used even when a GPL Qt would have been acceptable. And the alternatives are much worse for Free Software, with licensing making GPL actually unusable for any of the code, and not having Linux versions.
Because the current LGPL Qt prevents this defection to another library that would be more harmful for Free Software, the LGPL on it is doing exactly what RMS wants and I think he is 100% in favor of it.
You might also note that GTK is LGPL and I think RMS has a lot more say in how that is being done.
Separately on Friday, three Republican legislators asked the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to furnish more information about their criteria for evaluating the T-Mobile deal.
The three legislators — Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan, Greg Walden of Oregon and Joe Barton of Texas — said that they were concerned about the impact that rejecting the deal would have on job creation in the country. All three are tied to the House Energy and Commerce committee, with Mr. Upton serving as chairman.
“It is clear that this is a complex transaction and it is important that government officials reserve judgment until all of the facts have come to light,” they wrote in a letter to the Justice Department and the F.C.C.
How is somebody in Mississippi supposed to know that the guy who lives at 123 Some Road. Someplace, NY 12345 pays 7.5%, but the guy at 124 Some Road. Someplace NY 12345 pays 8.0%?
You may have missed it, but there are these new-fangled inventions called "computers" and "the internet" which have proven to be quite useful for figuring out such problems, and that it turns out anybody doing interstate sales needs access to these anyway just to be able to make such sales!
I think you are talking about PIMPL or some other scheme. All of them make inline functions not work.
You can also do partial-PIMPL where anything you want fast is put in the main object, while all the changable parts of the implementation are put into the IMPL that the P points at. This can work, it is usually true that the fast portion is not changing. However it is ugly as the various data is in different structures for no other good reason.
I am doing scientific computation (well actually special effects rendering) and I can tell you that saving the overhead of a function call, especially one that there is no chance the compiler will inline, is significant. Yes it is great and more important to replace an O(N^2) with O(Nlog(N)) function, but in the real world that happens rarely, and is a HUGE deal that results in all kinds of papers being written and everybody scrambling to do the rewrite to incorporate the speedup. Seemingly trivial linear speedups like this do add up, a lot. They are also necessary to stop lower-level programmers from doing their own speedups, such as copying the result into a local variable and making their code harder to maintain.
I think you may be saying the same thing I am. On an SSL connection, a MITM attack can be detected if the SSL certificate *changes*. The only way the MITM attack can be missed is if he manages to interrupt EVERY SINGLE CONNECTION including when your machine first got the certificate.
The current behavior of throwing up a scary warning on the first one just causes people to not use SSL at all for their pages, thus making this MITM detection impossible. Yes it is true that a MITM might be there at the start, but since you get the SAME scary warning whether or not he is there, it is helping absolutely none.
What I would like to see is for self-signed certificates to be silently accepted, with the lock icon removed from the url line. There can also be schemes of proxy trusted agents that can confirm self-signed certificates with (ie that they have not changed and many machines in different locations all see the same one for a site) that I think will produce much higher levels of security than any signing authority.
You don't get a warning for a plain http page, where the MITM has a really easy job to steal your password. So I see no reason for you to worry aboiut the MITM doing the enormously harder job of having been there on every single instance and interrupting every single communication since you first contacted this site.
Unless you can come up with an explanation of why a plain http page is safer than a self-signed certificate, none of your arguments make sense.
Sorry, poorly stated. Pretend foo() is an inline function that we want to be fast. For instance:
class C {
int _foo;
public:
inline int foo() { return _foo; } ...// hides extra complex stuff that SETS _foo
};
All PIMPL or implementation subclasses will produce a MUCH less efficient version of foo() than the above code. This is a big deal for real production software, and often means that encapsulation and data hiding is abandoned because of the performance hit.
Note that my idea still will not allow static or auto instances of the class, so it still has inefficiencies. I have no idea how to handle that, perhaps a linker could supply the object size at link time, but I would suspect that would still defeat most compiler optimization.
The complaint is that the browser does NOT throw up a warning for a completly plain page with no encryption (which I hope you will admit is even more suspectable to a MITM attack, seeing as the MITM can insert himself after communication has been started!). Therefore to the user, the worst security looks better than moderate security. This is stupid and should be fixed.
EVERY TIME somebody suggests this, some doofus says "but people will see the lock and think it is secure". These idiots either do not realize, or (I think more likely) REFUSE to realize that the browser needs some rewrite to remove those stupid warnings, and thus it is easy for the browser to also be rewritten to stop showing the lock! I'm getting pretty disgusted with the refusal to even pretend to understand opposing arguments. Hey, maybe there is a real objection, but I have yet to see one, and after years of this the arguments for those warnings still act as though it is physically impossible to remove the lock icon if SSL is used.
In my case it was "replace my stupid phone with a smart one". WP7 and Android were equally incompatible so that was not a deciding factor. I suspect that my case is still not unusual today. Also I fail to see why "I hate Apple" translates into "buy Android, not WP7". Also I have certainly know people replacing iPhones with Android and vice-versa.
Sorry your attempts to explain this away are not standing up and I am not believing you one bit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not going to get colder. You might want to study thermodynamics a bit!
To turn water into hydrogen + oxygen takes energy input. The huge deal with this announcement is that supposedly a larger percentage of that energy is used to split it, rather than turning *INTO* waste heat.
If your water-splitter got colder then you are using more than 100% of the input energy. Such a technology would have a lot larger implications than just making solar energy cheaper!
You are making the assumption that "one nameplate" costs exactly the same for all types of power generation. Perhaps solar costs more, perhaps less, for a "namepate" (a weird term I have never seen before). It does not confirm or deny your argument.
Also your capacities for solar are comparing them to how much energy they would generate if they faced the sun at a right angle for 24 hours a day. You might as well mark the capacity of a coal plant based on the potential energy of every C+H bond in the coal, not on what is expected to be burnt.
No, M$ is *not* a different way to write Multiple Sclerosis or Mississippi or Master of Science or Morgan Stanley.
It is a common way to abbreviate Microsoft to avoid ambiguity with these others.
It is also entertaining because it makes people with the mentality of 12 year olds go "oh you are so CHILDISH! CHILDISH! CHILDISH because I say so. PBBBBBTTTT! WAAAH I am soooo KOOOL because I said you are "CHILDISH!!!!!"""" Look in the mirror for an example.
Why is this argument actually being presented? It is stupid beyond belief!
So "using a component of IE" makes any program "IE"? Every single program that uses this rendering engine provided by Microsoft is IE? The program I can write right now that calls this rendering engine is therefore IE? Oh my god, I seem to have violated Microsoft's trademark and I can't get out of it, because my program "is IE" by your definition!
You can and should be able to remove the blue E from the desktop. Saying that "some of the code it uses remains so therefore it can't be removed" would mean you can't remove *anything* from the desktop, since they all call strlen() and other stuff that will still remain!
China is burning a lot of coal
The sun is spinning on it's own axis every few days, you know!
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery!
In Firefox, push the right mouse button on the tab, and pick "Move to New Window", and you will get a window.
Actually it does seem MAD works with unreasonable people. Some of the leaders of the Soviet Union were not exactly reasonable or sane! That might be true of some people in power in the USA, too. Yet we avoided nuking each other because we knew the result is that both would be nuked. Even earlier we avoided gassing or biological weapons throughout the 20th century, despite the fact that three of the four powers (and maybe you could count west's saturation bombing too) demonstrated genocidal insanity to those who could not respond in kind.
I believe the GP is suggesting that the voter gets some kind of hash of his and all previous votes, which they can check later on line to see if their hash is still there. The hash cannot be used to figure out what his votes were.
I'm not really clear on exactly how of if this would work. A compromised machine could always print out a hash that matches the changed vote. Even if it works I am unsure how you can prove all the hashes without at least being able to figure out the votes that went from one hash to the next, are correct and no extras were inserted.
This seems to be an attempt to reuse the "Microsoft tax" name.
It really isn't accurate, as what is being described is an inflated price on Apple's own products. "Apple markup" would be more accurate.
The "Microsoft tax" is slang for the fact that if you buy a typical PC without an operating system, the manufacturer has already paid for a Windows license for that machine (due to volume licensing) and they distribute that cost into the price of all machines. In effect when you buy the machine, some of your money goes to Microsoft even though you got nothing from them, thus the idea of "tax" like a "sales tax" which goes to the state even though the object you bought does not actually contain something made by the state.
Cookie Monster has been castrated. Cookies are a "sometimes food", and he mostly eats vegetables now.
This is a right-wing lie/urban legend:
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Is_Cookie_Monster_now_the_Veggie_Monster%3F
It was Hoots the Owl who sang "A Cookie Is a Sometimes Food" to Cookie Monster. At the end of the song, Cookie Monster declared, "NOW is sometimes!" and gobbled the cookie anyway.
This is incorrect. Companies and workers at companies AVOID looking at patents, and make sure they can prove they did not look at them. Knowingly violating a patent has much worse implications that unknowingly doing so.
I would like to see them drop all the STL and boost duplication and switch to standards as much as possible.
They don't have to drop MOC but it would be nice if they tried to figure out an equivalent that uses C++0x and macros.
The strings are not byte strings and therefore useless. This makes handling of UTF-8 and thus modern Unicode impossible because (like it or not) UTF-8 can contain invalid sequences and it is impossible to losslessly translate these to "wchar" or whatever crap they are using. It also makes things tremendously slow because any analysis of UTF-8 requires a malloc & copy (with many tests) before their string functions can be used. UTF-16 has no advantages over UTF-8, it is also variable-sized and can have invalid sequences (well it has a trivial advantage on Windows as many Windows api's want it, however I suspect the overhead of translation would be reduced by only translating at the moment the Windows call is done, rather than for every single string in the world! Also it would allow invalid sequences to throw errors at a much more sensible moment, I want an invalid filename to fail to open the file, not throw an error when I read it from the database!)
Huh? Without violating the LGPL you can take an LGPL library, make some changes, and release the result under the GPL. This is explicity allowed by the license. In fact it is required if the code you add is GPL, you cannot release the result as LGPL.
Nonsense. The RMS argument about libraries applies to Qt.
If Qt was GPL then it could not be used by non-GPL applications.
Now if Qt was the only toolkit in existence then this might do what RMS wants, which is force all software that needs a toolkit to be GPL.
However Qt is NOT the only toolkit in existence, and the desire to make non-GPL programs means there would be huge incentive to use something else.
This other thing would be learned by programmers and thus used even when a GPL Qt would have been acceptable. And the alternatives are much worse for Free Software, with licensing making GPL actually unusable for any of the code, and not having Linux versions.
Because the current LGPL Qt prevents this defection to another library that would be more harmful for Free Software, the LGPL on it is doing exactly what RMS wants and I think he is 100% in favor of it.
You might also note that GTK is LGPL and I think RMS has a lot more say in how that is being done.
It appears the links are swapped. The first link http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/att-responds-to-justice-dept-s-lawsuit-over-t-mobile-deal/ has this text in it:
Separately on Friday, three Republican legislators asked the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to furnish more information about their criteria for evaluating the T-Mobile deal.
The three legislators — Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan, Greg Walden of Oregon and Joe Barton of Texas — said that they were concerned about the impact that rejecting the deal would have on job creation in the country. All three are tied to the House Energy and Commerce committee, with Mr. Upton serving as chairman.
“It is clear that this is a complex transaction and it is important that government officials reserve judgment until all of the facts have come to light,” they wrote in a letter to the Justice Department and the F.C.C.
How is somebody in Mississippi supposed to know that the guy who lives at 123 Some Road. Someplace, NY 12345 pays 7.5%, but the guy at 124 Some Road. Someplace NY 12345 pays 8.0%?
You may have missed it, but there are these new-fangled inventions called "computers" and "the internet" which have proven to be quite useful for figuring out such problems, and that it turns out anybody doing interstate sales needs access to these anyway just to be able to make such sales!
I think you are talking about PIMPL or some other scheme. All of them make inline functions not work.
You can also do partial-PIMPL where anything you want fast is put in the main object, while all the changable parts of the implementation are put into the IMPL that the P points at. This can work, it is usually true that the fast portion is not changing. However it is ugly as the various data is in different structures for no other good reason.
I am doing scientific computation (well actually special effects rendering) and I can tell you that saving the overhead of a function call, especially one that there is no chance the compiler will inline, is significant. Yes it is great and more important to replace an O(N^2) with O(Nlog(N)) function, but in the real world that happens rarely, and is a HUGE deal that results in all kinds of papers being written and everybody scrambling to do the rewrite to incorporate the speedup. Seemingly trivial linear speedups like this do add up, a lot. They are also necessary to stop lower-level programmers from doing their own speedups, such as copying the result into a local variable and making their code harder to maintain.
I think you may be saying the same thing I am. On an SSL connection, a MITM attack can be detected if the SSL certificate *changes*. The only way the MITM attack can be missed is if he manages to interrupt EVERY SINGLE CONNECTION including when your machine first got the certificate.
The current behavior of throwing up a scary warning on the first one just causes people to not use SSL at all for their pages, thus making this MITM detection impossible. Yes it is true that a MITM might be there at the start, but since you get the SAME scary warning whether or not he is there, it is helping absolutely none.
What I would like to see is for self-signed certificates to be silently accepted, with the lock icon removed from the url line. There can also be schemes of proxy trusted agents that can confirm self-signed certificates with (ie that they have not changed and many machines in different locations all see the same one for a site) that I think will produce much higher levels of security than any signing authority.
You don't get a warning for a plain http page, where the MITM has a really easy job to steal your password. So I see no reason for you to worry aboiut the MITM doing the enormously harder job of having been there on every single instance and interrupting every single communication since you first contacted this site.
Unless you can come up with an explanation of why a plain http page is safer than a self-signed certificate, none of your arguments make sense.
I find it hard to believe you do not understand. Are you purposely trying to not get it?
What I and thousands of others want is for the browser to NOT put up a warning for self-signed pages. It also should not put the lock icon on the url.
Sorry, poorly stated. Pretend foo() is an inline function that we want to be fast. For instance:
... // hides extra complex stuff that SETS _foo
class C {
int _foo;
public:
inline int foo() { return _foo; }
};
All PIMPL or implementation subclasses will produce a MUCH less efficient version of foo() than the above code. This is a big deal for real production software, and often means that encapsulation and data hiding is abandoned because of the performance hit.
Note that my idea still will not allow static or auto instances of the class, so it still has inefficiencies. I have no idea how to handle that, perhaps a linker could supply the object size at link time, but I would suspect that would still defeat most compiler optimization.
The complaint is that the browser does NOT throw up a warning for a completly plain page with no encryption (which I hope you will admit is even more suspectable to a MITM attack, seeing as the MITM can insert himself after communication has been started!). Therefore to the user, the worst security looks better than moderate security. This is stupid and should be fixed.
EVERY TIME somebody suggests this, some doofus says "but people will see the lock and think it is secure". These idiots either do not realize, or (I think more likely) REFUSE to realize that the browser needs some rewrite to remove those stupid warnings, and thus it is easy for the browser to also be rewritten to stop showing the lock! I'm getting pretty disgusted with the refusal to even pretend to understand opposing arguments. Hey, maybe there is a real objection, but I have yet to see one, and after years of this the arguments for those warnings still act as though it is physically impossible to remove the lock icon if SSL is used.
In my case it was "replace my stupid phone with a smart one". WP7 and Android were equally incompatible so that was not a deciding factor. I suspect that my case is still not unusual today. Also I fail to see why "I hate Apple" translates into "buy Android, not WP7". Also I have certainly know people replacing iPhones with Android and vice-versa.
Sorry your attempts to explain this away are not standing up and I am not believing you one bit.