In comparison, the car uses / produces anything from 40'000 Watts to 200'000 Watts. 40 kW is about 50 HP... pretty small car. Of course, the car doesn't use full power all the time, but then again, 85 on the highway maxes it out, so if you're travelling, you're using several dozen kW.
So if you want to spend say 4 hours on the highway, you'll need about 160 kWH. If your residential circuit can give you, say, 30 kW (cooking, washing and drying, all at once), it's going to take you 5+ hours to get the energy into the car.
Just saying that residential circuits aren't up to the task. Cars use a heck of a lot of energy. Grids ain't up to it.
(If we're talking about cars, that is. If it's anything else... just lay back, relax, and watch me ride my hobby horse. Point and laugh if you feel like it. I can take it.)
So Microsoft simply caved, and will now co-operate fully with all comers, and will comply with the letter (if not the spirit) of the ruling?
Balls. They've just taking the fight to the next level, that's all. The expression "cold, dead hands", comes to mind, when contemplating any usable spec belonging to MS.
... you see, this is impossible. Impossible, due to the separation of powers. It's obviously the executive branch of government that is requesting the data, and the legislative that would be able to grant immunity. And it anything goes wrong, the judicative can be called upon, by any involved party. Checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances.
It's the magic of the system, as written down on a just piece of paper.
My iPod breakdown: - 12 gigs music. - 12 gigs movies and vPodCasts. - 10 gigs data, for just three files. iPod... for when a thumb drive just ain't big enough.
Not being able to use the zune as a drive is the ultimate breakdown for me. Figure: if they couldn't even get that one itsy bitsy featurette right... how do you figure they fared with the basic, main features?
Google makes 99% of its money from advertising. Google pays Dell to include its toolbar in the default install. So: The 5 or 10% of the web page real estate given over to an adsense ad (see top of this window) is what pays for the 30% added to the menu real estate allowing you to... well, what exactly?
Google toolbar is intrusive, but in a good way, because you can take it ot leave it, and it's quite frank about "only being able to do its job if it keeps a history of everything you do on the internet". The item with the greatest value that Google owns is your data (selling their technology is limited to pizza-box form, because anything else would be paramount to selling out to their competitors). It's not a question of if, it's a question of when: when is Google going to capitalise on this property? (As for the how - the only option is "to the max").
This isn't good or bad. It just is.
I don't use Google toolbar. But hey, I use Google. I'm in the loop.
If a democratically elected government is so far removed from the sovereign (which, in case anyone needs reminding, is the people), that it needs a "court jester" to tell it when it is acting counter to the interests of the sovereign, something has gone wrong, a while back.
I was thinking more of sociology 404. The stigma of the criminal seems to have morphed into the aura of the outlaw, sometime during the last century. Even more so if what you have done is not criminal, but merely criminally immoral. Seems that as long as you've got the moolah, you are, by definition, "good", and no doors are closed to you.
Depending on how you lay things out, every vendor for the last, oh, 40'000 years (you know, since "you give club, I give sheepskin") has been "infringing" on this "patent". Basically what eBay is doing is they have a shop, on the web, where people can peddle their wares. The "buy it now" price is the selling price (the club, the sheepskin), and the "OBO" is covered by the auction logic.
What astounds me is that there is a person out there, who has managed to stand up on his hind legs, and is stating that this is his invention. How does this guy interface with other people? How does he stand being laughed out of every conversation where his job or his "abilities" come up? Is ripping off one of the rare successes from the internet bubble a legitimate career now? Do these guys have no pride whatsoever?
How about "[...] Many young idealists who set out to create an alternative to the tech Establishment now find themselves successfully infiltrating it, and changing the landscape as we know it."
Software is becoming a commodity. The business is heading in the direction of services. Once Oracle has reached market saturation - everyone who is going to use Oracle, is - the only way they can grow is by selling people their knowledge on how best to use Oracle. And the fact that Oracle is dipping its toes in the sea of open source only goes to show that at some point, the commodity itself will retail at its actual cost of (re-)production: the cost of the bandwidth for downloading it.
Let me be more precise then: a graphics card that is able to transmit an unencrypted signal to a high-resolution monitor, whereby the singal is based upon data that is stored on a medium in an encrypted format, the aim of which is to disallow the signal between graphics card and monitor to be unencrypted. I.e., a graphics card that tells the producer of the data it is transforming into a signal (for output the high-resolution monitor) that it is retaining the encryption of the original media, when in fact it is doing no such thing.
I envision that this will enable me to watch high-definition movies on a monitor that is not able to decrypt an encrypted signal, and furthermore, will allow me to copy the data stored on said media in all its glory, for my own private use, the way the good lord intended (or at least strongly implied), by giving me some imagination.
Ah, maybe I've found the absolute moral compass I've been looking for all this time:)
Hackers may not be breaking their word: If I, as a manufacturer, sell a product to a buyer in spite of the fact that I know the buyer may not respect the special wishes I have concerning the employment of the product - do you really think I can call the buyer immoral, even when I could simply have refused to sell him the product?
On the other hand, if I, as a manufacturer, sell a product to a buyer and tell him that the special wishes I have concerning the employment of the product are legally binding conditions, even though I know that to be a lie - do you really think that is entirely moral?
I couldn't relly give a damn one way of the other - if I want a mac, I'll buy a mac - but as to the accusation of immorality...
The answer to the question of whether or not buying copy of OSX and installing it, or attempting to install it, on non-Apple hardware is immoral is hardly cut and dried. Looking at the posts in this thread, it appears to me to be a matter of opinion - not all the opposition appear to be moral dorks, and I, for one, haven't found an ultimate arbiter of morality, so I can't really make a statement that I would consider to be valid for anyone but myself.
However, depending on where you reside, it may be illegal, i.e., against both the letter and the spirit of the law, to perform or attempt to perform the installation.
On the other hand, again depending on where you reside, it may be legally unenforcable for Apple to forbid you from doing do. It's not illegal for them to write up a contract (and I'll leave the dubious enforfability of this contract aside) attempting to get you to agree to their terms, but I do consider it immoral of Apple to offer you only contract, which is at least in a major part legally unenforcable. They are consciously misrepresenting the law, and their customers' rights. Plus (oh, yeah IANAL, and I don't play one on TV) they may well be rendering other parts of the contract invalid, which would otherwise be valid.
Apple has a wish, that they may not be able to legally enforce, at least not everywhere. If I wrote to Apple and told them I itended to attempt to install their product on non-Apple hardware, they would probably be displeased, and most likely lie to me concerning the enforcability of that portion of the contract (if they wrote back at all). If I wrote up a special contract, they would almost certainly reject it. However, Apple chooses to sell their product not only directly (which would be a boon for the enforcability of the contract), but they choose also to sell it through vendors, who would, I am quite certain, not give a rat's ass about the licensing even if I tatooed my intentions on the back of their hands.
So:
Apple's behaviour: illegal: no Apple's behaviour: immoral: yes Hacker's behaviour: illegal: yes or no (depending on jurisdiction) Hacker's behaviour: immoral: who can tell?
... yah, right now I feel like queuing up when the PS3 comes out (whenever that may be) for two days or whatever, then demonstratively walking out holding an xBox 360, in the hope there's a camera crew hanging close by.
But then, when the time comes, that feeling will likely have passed.
I hardly think I'm the only one, but I'll be one of the first to purchase the first consumer level graphics card that puts out an HD signal to a "legacy" DVI monitor. The concept of "illegal technology" just brushes me the wrong way, and I'm confident there's some entrepreneural South Korean or Singaporian manufacturer who just isn't able to, however hard he tries, give a rat's ass about what some *AA halfway round the world thinks of their customers.
... is that Skype is anything but intent on making the best product they can. Quite the opposite in fact: a year after they gain brand recognition (at least in this neck of the woods), they go sell it to the highest bidder. Let me put it this way: right now, I personally believe that Skype is less focused on making really neat machines (i.e., The Utmost In Goodness) than Sony./hey, I heard that the only reason Skype is limiting their products on some architectures is because they don't know how those architectures work
... when it's come full circle: Photo manipulation SW gets so good that it can fool the photo manipulation detection SW every time, so you're going to need human specialists to detect the kinds of manipulation that SW can't. Just hope the jury hasn't been replaced by a 12-member P2P system by then.
Why, when a country rules by oppression, fear, and many other completely un-Democratic ideals should we make an exception?
Concerning, Google, or anyone else for that matter, because then at least you have some kind of influence. A Chinese living in a China with even a censored Google is probably better off than a Chinese living in a China that is completely cut off from anything democratic or free. You could even say that Google is fulfilling its responsibility that follows its credo "don't be evil" by remaining the Chinese marketplace even under adverse circumstances: the Chinese government would probably be all too happy to have them exit in a huff, and be able to sprinkle "Big Brother Is Your Friend" all over Chinese cyberspace with nary a "um, but..." to reckon with. (That, and the money of course;)
Slashdot Mirror
Dude ... 40 kW is the output. That means that, yes, it's consuming at least 120kW worth of gas.
And 40kW is what it takes to move about a ton of vehicle down the highway @ 85 mph, whether the car's ic or e.
Residential circuit ...
... pretty small car. Of course, the car doesn't use full power all the time, but then again, 85 on the highway maxes it out, so if you're travelling, you're using several dozen kW.
... just lay back, relax, and watch me ride my hobby horse. Point and laugh if you feel like it. I can take it.)
The object around a house which consumes / produces the most power is the car.
- Refrigerator: couple of 100 Watts
- Blow drier, vacuum cleaner: 1000-2000 Watts
- Electric cooker / washer / drier: 5000 Watts? 10'000 Watts?
In comparison, the car uses / produces anything from 40'000 Watts to 200'000 Watts. 40 kW is about 50 HP
So if you want to spend say 4 hours on the highway, you'll need about 160 kWH. If your residential circuit can give you, say, 30 kW (cooking, washing and drying, all at once), it's going to take you 5+ hours to get the energy into the car.
Just saying that residential circuits aren't up to the task. Cars use a heck of a lot of energy. Grids ain't up to it.
(If we're talking about cars, that is. If it's anything else
Or how great it is you can find quite so many nekkid pics of his granddaughter on the intarw ... hold on, there's someone at the door.
1) Accelerate to approx. 35 times the speed of sound
;)
2) Release (preferably in an upward direction)
Sheesh. Jules Verne already knew that.
So Microsoft simply caved, and will now co-operate fully with all comers, and will comply with the letter (if not the spirit) of the ruling?
Balls. They've just taking the fight to the next level, that's all. The expression "cold, dead hands", comes to mind, when contemplating any usable spec belonging to MS.
... then we can expect similar groundbreaking, innovative improvements as we saw when hotmail was microwashed.
... they've got accelerometers to protect them.
... you see, this is impossible. Impossible, due to the separation of powers. It's obviously the executive branch of government that is requesting the data, and the legislative that would be able to grant immunity. And it anything goes wrong, the judicative can be called upon, by any involved party. Checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances.
It's the magic of the system, as written down on a just piece of paper.
... so the batteries were accellerated to 60 mph *together* with the car?
Aha. I deduce that we are not dealing with trolley car in this particular case.
My iPod breakdown: ... for when a thumb drive just ain't big enough.
... how do you figure they fared with the basic, main features?
- 12 gigs music.
- 12 gigs movies and vPodCasts.
- 10 gigs data, for just three files.
iPod
Not being able to use the zune as a drive is the ultimate breakdown for me.
Figure: if they couldn't even get that one itsy bitsy featurette right
... flying chairs.
Cyc should be allowed to learn through observation and deduce its own understanding of the world so that it is not bound by any particular syntax.
How would this Cyc store store what it learned about the world?
Google makes 99% of its money from advertising. Google pays Dell to include its toolbar in the default install. So: The 5 or 10% of the web page real estate given over to an adsense ad (see top of this window) is what pays for the 30% added to the menu real estate allowing you to ... well, what exactly?
Google toolbar is intrusive, but in a good way, because you can take it ot leave it, and it's quite frank about "only being able to do its job if it keeps a history of everything you do on the internet". The item with the greatest value that Google owns is your data (selling their technology is limited to pizza-box form, because anything else would be paramount to selling out to their competitors). It's not a question of if, it's a question of when: when is Google going to capitalise on this property? (As for the how - the only option is "to the max").
This isn't good or bad. It just is.
I don't use Google toolbar. But hey, I use Google. I'm in the loop.
If a democratically elected government is so far removed from the sovereign (which, in case anyone needs reminding, is the people), that it needs a "court jester" to tell it when it is acting counter to the interests of the sovereign, something has gone wrong, a while back.
I was thinking more of sociology 404. The stigma of the criminal seems to have morphed into the aura of the outlaw, sometime during the last century. Even more so if what you have done is not criminal, but merely criminally immoral. Seems that as long as you've got the moolah, you are, by definition, "good", and no doors are closed to you.
Depending on how you lay things out, every vendor for the last, oh, 40'000 years (you know, since "you give club, I give sheepskin") has been "infringing" on this "patent". Basically what eBay is doing is they have a shop, on the web, where people can peddle their wares. The "buy it now" price is the selling price (the club, the sheepskin), and the "OBO" is covered by the auction logic.
What astounds me is that there is a person out there, who has managed to stand up on his hind legs, and is stating that this is his invention. How does this guy interface with other people? How does he stand being laughed out of every conversation where his job or his "abilities" come up? Is ripping off one of the rare successes from the internet bubble a legitimate career now? Do these guys have no pride whatsoever?
How about "[...] Many young idealists who set out to create an alternative to the tech Establishment now find themselves successfully infiltrating it, and changing the landscape as we know it."
Software is becoming a commodity. The business is heading in the direction of services. Once Oracle has reached market saturation - everyone who is going to use Oracle, is - the only way they can grow is by selling people their knowledge on how best to use Oracle. And the fact that Oracle is dipping its toes in the sea of open source only goes to show that at some point, the commodity itself will retail at its actual cost of (re-)production: the cost of the bandwidth for downloading it.
/or so sayeth the idealist
Let me be more precise then: a graphics card that is able to transmit an unencrypted signal to a high-resolution monitor, whereby the singal is based upon data that is stored on a medium in an encrypted format, the aim of which is to disallow the signal between graphics card and monitor to be unencrypted. I.e., a graphics card that tells the producer of the data it is transforming into a signal (for output the high-resolution monitor) that it is retaining the encryption of the original media, when in fact it is doing no such thing.
I envision that this will enable me to watch high-definition movies on a monitor that is not able to decrypt an encrypted signal, and furthermore, will allow me to copy the data stored on said media in all its glory, for my own private use, the way the good lord intended (or at least strongly implied), by giving me some imagination.
All clear now?
Ah, maybe I've found the absolute moral compass I've been looking for all this time :)
Hackers may not be breaking their word: If I, as a manufacturer, sell a product to a buyer in spite of the fact that I know the buyer may not respect the special wishes I have concerning the employment of the product - do you really think I can call the buyer immoral, even when I could simply have refused to sell him the product?
On the other hand, if I, as a manufacturer, sell a product to a buyer and tell him that the special wishes I have concerning the employment of the product are legally binding conditions, even though I know that to be a lie - do you really think that is entirely moral?
I couldn't relly give a damn one way of the other - if I want a mac, I'll buy a mac - but as to the accusation of immorality ...
The answer to the question of whether or not buying copy of OSX and installing it, or attempting to install it, on non-Apple hardware is immoral is hardly cut and dried. Looking at the posts in this thread, it appears to me to be a matter of opinion - not all the opposition appear to be moral dorks, and I, for one, haven't found an ultimate arbiter of morality, so I can't really make a statement that I would consider to be valid for anyone but myself.
However, depending on where you reside, it may be illegal, i.e., against both the letter and the spirit of the law, to perform or attempt to perform the installation.
On the other hand, again depending on where you reside, it may be legally unenforcable for Apple to forbid you from doing do. It's not illegal for them to write up a contract (and I'll leave the dubious enforfability of this contract aside) attempting to get you to agree to their terms, but I do consider it immoral of Apple to offer you only contract, which is at least in a major part legally unenforcable. They are consciously misrepresenting the law, and their customers' rights. Plus (oh, yeah IANAL, and I don't play one on TV) they may well be rendering other parts of the contract invalid, which would otherwise be valid.
Apple has a wish, that they may not be able to legally enforce, at least not everywhere. If I wrote to Apple and told them I itended to attempt to install their product on non-Apple hardware, they would probably be displeased, and most likely lie to me concerning the enforcability of that portion of the contract (if they wrote back at all). If I wrote up a special contract, they would almost certainly reject it. However, Apple chooses to sell their product not only directly (which would be a boon for the enforcability of the contract), but they choose also to sell it through vendors, who would, I am quite certain, not give a rat's ass about the licensing even if I tatooed my intentions on the back of their hands.
So:
Apple's behaviour: illegal: no
Apple's behaviour: immoral: yes
Hacker's behaviour: illegal: yes or no (depending on jurisdiction)
Hacker's behaviour: immoral: who can tell?
... yah, right now I feel like queuing up when the PS3 comes out (whenever that may be) for two days or whatever, then demonstratively walking out holding an xBox 360, in the hope there's a camera crew hanging close by.
But then, when the time comes, that feeling will likely have passed.
I hardly think I'm the only one, but I'll be one of the first to purchase the first consumer level graphics card that puts out an HD signal to a "legacy" DVI monitor. The concept of "illegal technology" just brushes me the wrong way, and I'm confident there's some entrepreneural South Korean or Singaporian manufacturer who just isn't able to, however hard he tries, give a rat's ass about what some *AA halfway round the world thinks of their customers.
... is that Skype is anything but intent on making the best product they can. Quite the opposite in fact: a year after they gain brand recognition (at least in this neck of the woods), they go sell it to the highest bidder. /hey, I heard that the only reason Skype is limiting their products on some architectures is because they don't know how those architectures work
Let me put it this way: right now, I personally believe that Skype is less focused on making really neat machines (i.e., The Utmost In Goodness) than Sony.
... when it's come full circle: Photo manipulation SW gets so good that it can fool the photo manipulation detection SW every time, so you're going to need human specialists to detect the kinds of manipulation that SW can't. Just hope the jury hasn't been replaced by a 12-member P2P system by then.
Why, when a country rules by oppression, fear, and many other completely un-Democratic ideals should we make an exception?
..." to reckon with. (That, and the money of course ;)
Concerning, Google, or anyone else for that matter, because then at least you have some kind of influence. A Chinese living in a China with even a censored Google is probably better off than a Chinese living in a China that is completely cut off from anything democratic or free. You could even say that Google is fulfilling its responsibility that follows its credo "don't be evil" by remaining the Chinese marketplace even under adverse circumstances: the Chinese government would probably be all too happy to have them exit in a huff, and be able to sprinkle "Big Brother Is Your Friend" all over Chinese cyberspace with nary a "um, but