Oh, that's so 2036.... Even my grandparents had that. I think I have an old 5D holoenv box in the garage. Just have your droid come over and pick it up. Be sure you send 15k Earth credits with it. I don't deal in off-world currency.
You, sir, have obviously never tasted the fine watery goodness that is Bling H2O. Be sure to try the "The Ten Thou", for only $2,600.
For some people, no price is too high, for a HDMI cable, or a bottle of water... They're easily identified by waving their Centurion Card around, and ordering "the best" and "the most expensive" of everything, but for some reason always forgetting to leave a tip.
So you're saying, instead of blowing air across the panels, you move the panels fast through the air... Brilliant. Except...
Have you ever driven a car that's been parked for a long time, and the windshield has gotten very dusty? If you haven't, and you've only cleared a spot to see from, you'll notice the rest of the windshield is dusty. Now if you were to drive at say 55mph for as long as you'd like, when yous top again the windshield will still be dusty. Well, assuming no rain, fog, etc..
The only difference between a windshield wiper, and a brush, would be what it's made of. A rubber blade will break down rapidly enough for it to be a poor choice. That's pretty much like trying to use the wipers on the same car that was parked for years outside and got dusty. It'll make some horrible noises, and not make it much cleaner. It also may cause some pretty severe scratching as it shoves an abrasive between the blade and the glass.
The brush, sure, that's a good idea. It can also lead to scratching, but probably not as bad. Walmart sells some pretty cheap ones that would have done the job nicely. I don't seem to remember a label on them saying "certified for use on martian soil" though.
With a short throw lens to increase the displayed size, it would still take several projectors to do the same thing, and the light output would be pretty low. Well, probably about as low as those LED grids, as shown. Say it needed 10 projectors at $1k/ea (mine is going for less than that on eBay). I didn't bother to do the math on theoretical projection size, so we'll just say 10 will do it. We'll also assume that the bulbs were changed at 2080 hours (every Christmas, since the boss didn't give anyone the day off), that would be $1,250/yr in bulbs. If the same space cost $60,000 to install the LED ceiling, *and* it never needed maintenance (ha), it would take 48 years for the projector, it would take 40 years for the projectors to cost the same as the LED pseudo-sky ceiling.
It's all nonsense though. Most full time employees in the US get 2 15 minute and 1 30 minute breaks during the day. If the employer wants them to see the sky, he'll recommend they go out to the "smoking lounge", which is really just a spot out the back door with an ashtray and no seats. Rain? Snow? Who gives a shit, you got plenty of sky outside, go enjoy it for the next 900 seconds.
It's covered by the RICO act (and other laws), and is known as extortion. It's basically summarized as, "I threaten to take legal action against you, if you don't pay me money."
They know perfectly well that Mr. Blogger, who may make hundreds a year, can't possibly defend himself against a single corporation who makes millions, or a group of corporations who make billions.
It's not even just the individual. They could take down Slashdot, as portions of the article are reused here. That *is* allowed by copyright law as fair use.
What these publishers are going to find out is, if they kill off the bloggers who are partially republishing their stories and providing links, the traffic to the original publication is going to drop. I won't say it would be huge. That all depends on the publication. How many people read the NY Times directly, and how many catch an interesting story on Slashdot and follow the link to the NY Times?
I strongly suspect that the average Mr. Blogger is not the target. They want the big fish with big money. Google News, Yahoo News, and other multi-million hit/day sites. I don't know, but I suspect, that they are already paying their tribute to the news corps for at least some of their feeds. This will severely impact mid-level news sites, who get tens of thousands of hits/day. They may make a few bucks at it from advertising, but that's a long way from being able to pay for feeds from AP, Reuters, UPI, etc. More often than not, the advertising revenue barely pays for their hosting.
As it's clear that they are litigious bastards, they will work their way down the ranks, until they're filing 100k "John Doe" lawsuits every week. It could very easily get to the point where if you posted more than a few words that could have been in another story, you owe or get shut down.
But, the litigious bastards will always win. Why? Because they have the money. They already own a decent portion of our political system, they can and will have laws changed in their favor. This has been proven time and time again. At very least, the litigious bastards can afford to keep it in court longer than you can.
Euros per square meter. But, that sounds like a formula for a black hole.
Europe = 9,938,000 sq/km
7,155,360,000 square kilometers compressed into 0.72 square meters. I assume that compression worked vertically on the same scale.. And they were worried about the LHC.
Damn real fake sky tile things. They'll be the end of us. The end of us all!
Can any of us guarantee that for 25 years we will have constant employment, at the same rate as we started, increases in pay growing with inflation? You can say "put half your pay in savings". So that still requires 12.5 years putting half your income into a savings or investment account. People get absolutely fucked that way too. My girlfriends 401k went from over $100k down to $12k. It's back up to $15k. 401k. Safe investment. It's your retirement nest egg. Well, until the stock market crashes, and all the funds tank.
"make your mortgage payment" sounds great on paper. I was employed constantly until November 2006. Before that, the longest period I was "out of work" was 3 days, which I opted to take between jobs.
None of us can predict that the job market will tank. That the real estate market will tank. That the stock market and investment funds will tank. No amount of planning or diversification of investments will really help that. Well, unless you're a "business too big to fail", and the government will toss you a few billion dollars to keep you going.
Having a bank call in your loan shouldn't be a big deal. You just go to another bank and get a loan to cover it. Except... these days it's easy to be refused. You didn't have your job for enough years. Your credit dropped because you were late a few payments when you were laid off for 2 years, and couldn't find another job. But now that you're back on your feet, you'll be all set in 5 to 14 years, when the bad records fall off your credit report. Oh ya. You don't have 5 to 14 years to make arrangements when they call in your loan.
When you're talking about a 25 years payment, don't forget the interest rates.
... and they said the loanshark industry was dead. Not dead, just legalized, industrialized, and protected by the government. I would take the threat of lawsuits, ruined credit (therefore blocked from other credit accounts for years), and repossession of your house at any point, including at 24.9 years, as the same illegal "blackmail and extortion" that "criminals" used in the past.
It's not about replicating sunlight. It's about making someone a metric fucktonne of money making LED simulated skies in ceiling panels.
According to the article, each tile is 288 LEDs. Excuse me while I do some math, so this will make sense in US dollars, and the size of a ceiling tile.
A standard office ceiling tile is 2'x4' (0.6mx1.2m). The article shows a price of 1000 euros per square meter. (1 sq/m = 10.764 sq/ft). 92.90 euros per sq/ft, or $118.88 USD per sq/ft. 8 sq/ft per panel. or $951.04 per panel.
The density of the LEDs is pretty sparse. 36 LEDs per square foot, or 0.25 per square inch. So one LED per 4 square inches. That would explain why the room looks so dark, compared to the overcast day outside the window.
A modest size office space at 500 sq/ft room would cost roughly $60,000 to put this ceiling into. That's a lot of money to waste on ceiling tiles. It would have probably done very well during the dotcom bubble. Now, that's a lot of other equipment, or salaries for a few employees for a year.
They don't go into the cost of installation, nor MTBF of the equipment. If panels need to be changed yearly for whatever reason, that would get pretty damned expensive. The LEDs should live a long time, but who knows how long their control circuitry will survive.
I'd suspect it's something pretty close to that. Not necessarily everyone with a box that they call a server, but more likely every department who allocated a space as a "server room" or "datacenter". Someone else said it had to be 500 sq/ft with some other qualifications.
I do wonder if there are, for example, multiple agencies with their own spaces at places like Equinix.
Having so many diverse spaces is good for no single point of failure, but bad for management across the enterprise (being the government as a whole).
It would make a lot more sense for the government to own a handful of spaces (like a couple dozen maybe), the scale of the Equinix facilities. That would reduce the costs substantially over having a few thousand spaces being used.
You don't know how many times I've told people that. They're usually the same people who say "How could they have done it?", and then I have to break out years old writeups of the exploit.
Case in point, SQL injection. I was talking to some web programmers who apparently have worked in a bubble, and learned everything from the books, but glossed over the part about "never trust user input". They didn't get it. I demonstrated a SQL injection against their code. Then they were willing to listen.
Too many programmers see user input as being trustworthy. Back in the day, it was as simple as "don't allow ` or ; in lines you send to a system calls". People even screwed that up. Then it was "don't do system calls, do everything natively in your code". People ignored that. Then it became "never trust user input", and "sanitize any user provided data". It's sad but true, they still don't care.
I've introduced people to hacking tools and methodologies. It's not so they can hack. I "encourage" them to try to hack their own code. Code it right the first time. Then attack it to prove that it is right. And keep trying to break into it. Learn better techniques, and teach me something. I don't mind in the least if a coworker can show me that I'm wrong. It's worse if a malicious 3rd party does.
There's no excuse for someone not to know and use the same tools that attackers use, to defend themselves.
Honestly, my main purpose in getting it was to watch HD DirecTV stuff on it. It's been a few years, and I don't have that any more. I ended up watching everything on it. Even when friends had me over to watch stuff on their huge plasma TVs, it still was better. Size does matter. Having a dark room to watch it in really helps. It has a good contrast ratio and brightness, but the darker you can make the theater, the better it looks.
It's moved with me into 4 different houses. I'll describe each.:)
Actually, so you can see, This is the first incarnation of it. This house had a perfect room for it. It was a rectangular room. On one side, there were folding vented doors going to the rest of the house. On the other side was a huge sliding glass door. In the summer, we simply couldn't keep the room cool. I put aluminum foil over the entire sliding door, held in place with packing tape. It sounds cheesy, but it worked great. We closed the verticle blinds over it, and it just looked like it was dark out and the blinds were closed. Where the A/C had a hard time keeping the house at 78F in the summer, that room was now 72F, with the vents mostly closed.
We just watched it projected on the wall. As I found, that's not the most desirable way, but in comparison to the 32" CRT, it was heaven.
In the second house, we bought a pulldown screen. That winter we learned a secret. If you have your screen hanging 2 feet in front of a fireplace, it's a bad idea to watch a movie while you have a nice fire going.. No fire, but it did warp the center of the screen slightly. It was ok, except for when the scene panned horizontally. It was like looking through a warped glass window. The subwoofer also blew out, so I got a much better one. I had to set it so it wouldn't rattle the windows, as the noise is distracting.:)
In the third house, it was the first house I owned, so it was worth doing it right. All the speakers were mounted perfectly, and tuned within about 2dB. I bought proper screen material, and made a hardwood frame, and kept tension on the screen with clips and bungee cords, and hung it properly. The setup was beautiful. The screen itself was something like 6'x10', but we didn't use the whole space. Depending on what is shown, the aspect ratio changes, so we always wanted the picture to fit on the screen. We did adjust the shown size slightly to make the viewing angle appropriate for the couch distance. I also upgraded some of the speakers. It was nice. We could watch movies, and if we wanted to go have a smoke break, we'd go to the back porch, and then it was like just watching a big plasma instead of sitting in a theater. The sound was clear enough that it was very good, although we (obviously) lost the proper surround sound feeling.
In the 4th house, the new space was as large as the previous, and it was a nice rectangular room. We found that the screen material got lost in the move. We just went with a king size sheet. Ya, that's worse than a nice flat wall, but unfortunately the builder had other ideas, and we had to cover a big window. {sigh} The space is a bit "live", which took some work to fix.
It's currently disassembled. A friend wanted to record music in the space, so it became an impromptu recording studio. That went well.:) We're mostly set up again, but I need to order screen material, and build a new screen frame.
All in all, the price hasn't been bad. The first bulb finally burned out at somewhere just over 3,000 hours. I went pricing better projectors. I couldn't justify a better one. There are a few, but not many in the consumer grade/price range. They're really expensive. I found a seller on eBay with new bulbs for about $125. So we'll be back to watching
Maybe you should consider what the cable company does...
The home is typically pre-wired. They are not responsible for the testing or verification of all wiring in the home. The attach their cable to the home wiring, which should already be properly grounded, and put their cable modem in, which attaches to the residential wired coax and residential wired power. It is not required or expected, of a technician installing a cable modem, to review the residence for proper grounding. It most likely states in the contract or terms of service, that you should have an electrician evaluate your electrical system, and provide a ground as necessary.
I did find a number of other forum posts, where people were complaining that Comcast *wouldn't* install service, because they did *not* have a proper ground. They instructed the customer to contact an electrician or the power company, to install a grounding rod.
When having T1's installed, I've had the providers show me where the "good earth ground" is for them to use, and sign off on the fact that if any equipment is damaged because the ground is not actually a "good earth ground", that I am responsible for any damaged equipment. We had to comply with other requirements also, such as 3/4" thick polyurethane coated plywood board mounted to the wall, for them to install their equipment to, dedicated power circuits, UPS, etc.
We have insufficient information to have an educated opinion. Maybe it was grounded. Maybe it was grounded at the pole. If the house is pre-wired, it should be assumed that it is properly grounded inside.
We do know that lightning does not always follow the shortest path to ground. It can. If you've ever seen high speed photography of a lightning strike, it's not a single arc from point A to B. Even still, there is a huge electrical/static charge and EMP related to, but not directly resulting from, such a discharge.
I live in the "lightning capital of the US". We are very aware of lightning strikes and their results. Anyone who has lived here long has seen what can (and does) happen, even in perfectly grounded environments. If you suffer a direct strike, virtually anything connected to wires, no matter how well grounded and surge protected, can be damaged. It is very common for people to disconnect all of their valuable electronics during a storm. Physically disconnecting them from their sources, not just turning off a switch. Lightning that just went miles through the air will easily jump a fraction of an inch in a switch.
I've seen computers that were turned off, attached to surge protectors that were turned off, where the switch, fuse, and internal components of the surge protector were melted. Heavier electrical devices tend to handle it better, but I've even see those with holes burned in the sides of their casing, where the lightning jumped from them to another piece of metal.
We had several computers damaged in one office, because the telephone and network cables ran under the floor. The building was an older one, with a crawlspace under it. There was a nearby (but not direct) lightning strike, which caused a static charge under the building. Several seemingly unrelated computers and telephones, were damaged or destroyed. Two cables were rendered unusable, as several conductors were broken due to the strike (probably melted). Being under the building, and not touching the ground, weren't enough to protect them.
If we were provided detailed schematics and photographs of the wiring, including grounding, for anything conductive (power, telephone, cable, plumbing, TV antenna mast, satellite dish, etc), we could make an educated opinion to what happened. For all I know, the lightning struck the roof of the house, hitting the main power lines coming it. it then could have traveled through the electrical system, and back out the c
Yup, the "Tesla Oscillator" and tele-geodynamics. It should be clarified, it wasn't an electromagnetic field, it was a steam powered oscillator. He did demonstrate that harmonic oscillations could be felt throughout a building, with a very small input force. He was looking at sending waves (and therefor power) around the world, much like his work in harmonic oscillations in the atmosphere, which was people dubbed his death ray. For the world wide scale, the waves were spaced something like 1.75 hrs apart. Extremely ELF.:)
The story you're trying to tell is of a building on Wall Street, that was under construction. And obviously the "local town" was New York City. It's questionable if that really happened or not, as New York actually does sit on a fault line, the "125th Street fault line". The story was probably a total fabrication, based on the 1884 which was a magnitude 5.2 earthquake. It's much harder to attribute the two 2001 magnitude 2 earthquakes to him. From what I've read of Tesla, it would be very reasonable to believe that he claimed to have caused that, simply to draw attention to his work. He was a brilliant scientist, but not so good at business or public relations. If he were alive today, he'd be locked up in a mental hospital, and we would never see any of his work.
Even if you did manage to find a news article from the time that had that specific citation, I would be skeptical about the truth. Fact checking was limited, while sensationalized stories sold papers.
Tesla did fabulous work on ideas that had never been explored. There are plenty of strange and natural occurrences, which have been attributed to him, because his work did have strange results. I believe it was from his Colorado Springs lab that he induced sparks from people's feet and from water taps.
Actually, that would have been "Consolidated Edison" eventually shortened to "ConEd". Otherwise, you're absolutely right. How much did he cheat the world from, by not funding Tesla? We'll never know.
Well, unless the conspiracy theory that Tesla managed to make himself immortal, and moved to Argentina to pursue high energy experiments for gravity control and space travel are true. I kid you not, I picked up a really good book on Tesla. The last two chapters went into this wild conspiracy stuff. What an awful way to ruin a really informative book. I was under the distinct impression that the publishers read the first few chapters, and confirmed the facts, but no on bothered to read the whole thing before it went to press.
Heh. That's pretty much what I was going to say.. If he had the patent(s) on it, he'd praise it as the best thing since... well... the light bulb. If he didn't, he'd be pushing all the reasons that it was horrible and dangerous.
That's the way he played.. Otherwise, we would be praising the successor to the Joseph Swan light bulb.
Patents are a bitch, and Edison was the original patent troll.
It's more like, they were already making the claims in 2010. The organizations listed said that they either had minimal interaction, or no interaction, and no requirements to do such testing. They continue repeating it through 2011.
I don't have the time to investigate it, but I'm sure if you'd like to prove me wrong, you can call the TSA, and other listed agencies, and ask them what the extent of their actions with the TSA and testing the safety of the TSA equipment is.
If you'd really like to clear the air on it, I can give you an email account at my news site, and you can write up an article on it yourself, which I will publish.
I'm not too proud to say that I'm wrong. I won't say that I'm wrong because an organization repeated an old disproven claim.
The REM is a measure of the dose, not the rate. If the information is correct, then it will be 10 microrem per scan. "From time you step in to time you step out", 10 microrem, if there is only one scan. Two scans, 20 urem. Fifty scans, 500 microrem.
Ya, I'm not a nuclear physicist.:) The point still stands. Is that 10 microrem on a single pulse, scan line, one second of exposure? Wanting it to be safe, we can assume from entrance to exit. But if we were working for the company who produces them, we'd put the best spin possible on it, and say "10 microrem" without explaining that it's on a single pulse or scan line. Sure, let people assume it's total exposure, and we'll pretend that none of it goes off it is ever reflected outside of this uncontained space. In reality, it's very likely that you get at least 3 or 4 doses. Probably 2 while you're waiting to go in, one while you're in it, and one while you're standing on the other side waiting for your shoes.
A Geiger counter meaures rate, not dose. You need to carry a dosimeter if you want to measure
ya, but it would likely be more useful to know what the exposure area is. Just because the badge turns black only means that you did indeed receive exposure.
your dose. Those can be as simple as a film badge. You could even hide that badge under your clothing so the TSA droid wouldn't be ordering you to "put that electronic doohickey through the x-ray machine" and keeping you out of the scanner. You'd have to deal with the aftermath of having the dosimeter on you when it was discovered after the fact, but I doubt they'd confiscate it (if they even knew what it was. I've had TSA baggage searchers who looked quizically at something most people would immediately recognize as "a book".)
There's an easy explanation. "I'm a contractor for the NRC, and I am exposed to radiation as part of my job. I am to always wear my dosimeter, so I am sure I haven't exceeded the legal limits. Whereas you are using equipment that does involve radiation (pointing to the carry-on scanner and body scanner), it is important to my health that I know my total exposure per year."
On second though, their eyes will glaze over by the time I got to "NRC". That, and I don't know enough about the NRC's operations to keep the story going.:) I could say "classified", but one phone call will show that lying.
I've had all kinds of questions about stuff I'm carrying. Lots of people have been confused about what I'm carrying. Most of it I can say "computer stuff", and they're happy. You know, it's easier to check my bag with a firearm in it, than carry a second laptop through security. I don't do it on every trip, but often enough.
Oh, and I just found This link from June, 2011 where they say all the people who are monitoring their equipment. This story from Dec, 2010 states that it's false. I guess the lies are still good, as long as not everyone knows...
The TSA says... The thing is, the devices are unregulated. There is no one checking to make sure that they're putting out 10 urem. They don't allow security agents to wear dosimeters. No regulatory body is allowed to test them. The TSA assures us that they are checked yearly. They don't go any further in their description of "checked". Is it an operational test, that shows an image can be returned, or is it a true measurement of the emitted radiation?
One of the problems with the measured dosage also is, it's 10urem in a very discrete beam. It then scans your whole body. This is in a fashion similar to the electron gun scanning on a CRT. It's the cumulative effect of these scans which is in question. So from the time you step in, to the time you step out, is that 10 urem, 100 mrem, or 1 rem? I've been through security roughly 50 times this year. If I had opted to go through the machines, have I been exposed to 50 rem? The EPA legal limit for a nuclear worker is 5 rem/yr.
In hospitals, we've seen that either due to hardware, programming, or operator error, the wrong dosage is applied. Sometimes it's been with catastrophic effects.
Just because it's what you might get elsewhere doesn't make it any better. That just means I'm exposed to more. It means that we've increased our dosage beyond normal background radiation.
Consider it this way... In 1980, the EPA showed the average carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere to be 9ppm. Toxicity is 100ppm. If carbon monoxide were a viable test for whatever, would it be acceptable to breath straight carbon monoxide for 15 seconds?
The result from this carbon monoxide test would be apparent much quicker than the radiation results. Either way, it's the same. I already get my dose from the atmosphere, I don't need to add to it.
I've been considering picking up a geiger counter, and carrying it through. Sure, they'll get pissed when they find out, but if I can say "Hey, you just exposed me to 10 rem!" then I'd have something. I'd probably also be arrested for interfering with the TSA, blah, blah, blah. Since I haven't been able to justify spending a few hundred bucks just to fuck with the TSA (and the impending apocalypse, but that's for another time), no matter how right or wrong I may be. Hey, I may find out that it's really trivial. Then my only reason for not going through will be so they'll stop taking pictures of my penis. There's enough pictures of it out there on the Internet already.
While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, I can't disagree with you... Even if you did post as AC.
Oh, that's so 2036.... Even my grandparents had that. I think I have an old 5D holoenv box in the garage. Just have your droid come over and pick it up. Be sure you send 15k Earth credits with it. I don't deal in off-world currency.
You, sir, have obviously never tasted the fine watery goodness that is Bling H2O. Be sure to try the "The Ten Thou", for only $2,600.
For some people, no price is too high, for a HDMI cable, or a bottle of water... They're easily identified by waving their Centurion Card around, and ordering "the best" and "the most expensive" of everything, but for some reason always forgetting to leave a tip.
So you're saying, instead of blowing air across the panels, you move the panels fast through the air... Brilliant. Except...
Have you ever driven a car that's been parked for a long time, and the windshield has gotten very dusty? If you haven't, and you've only cleared a spot to see from, you'll notice the rest of the windshield is dusty. Now if you were to drive at say 55mph for as long as you'd like, when yous top again the windshield will still be dusty. Well, assuming no rain, fog, etc..
The only difference between a windshield wiper, and a brush, would be what it's made of. A rubber blade will break down rapidly enough for it to be a poor choice. That's pretty much like trying to use the wipers on the same car that was parked for years outside and got dusty. It'll make some horrible noises, and not make it much cleaner. It also may cause some pretty severe scratching as it shoves an abrasive between the blade and the glass.
The brush, sure, that's a good idea. It can also lead to scratching, but probably not as bad. Walmart sells some pretty cheap ones that would have done the job nicely. I don't seem to remember a label on them saying "certified for use on martian soil" though.
Some of the best ideas always come during or after after the mission. Too bad there's no one there with a, broom, and duct tape.
The bulb for mine is about $125, and gives 2000 to 3000 hours. I changed mine at 3000 hours, and am keeping it as a spare.
Assuming 40 hour weeks, 52 weeks a year, that's 2080 hours/yr.
With a short throw lens to increase the displayed size, it would still take several projectors to do the same thing, and the light output would be pretty low. Well, probably about as low as those LED grids, as shown. Say it needed 10 projectors at $1k/ea (mine is going for less than that on eBay). I didn't bother to do the math on theoretical projection size, so we'll just say 10 will do it. We'll also assume that the bulbs were changed at 2080 hours (every Christmas, since the boss didn't give anyone the day off), that would be $1,250/yr in bulbs. If the same space cost $60,000 to install the LED ceiling, *and* it never needed maintenance (ha), it would take 48 years for the projector, it would take 40 years for the projectors to cost the same as the LED pseudo-sky ceiling.
It's all nonsense though. Most full time employees in the US get 2 15 minute and 1 30 minute breaks during the day. If the employer wants them to see the sky, he'll recommend they go out to the "smoking lounge", which is really just a spot out the back door with an ashtray and no seats. Rain? Snow? Who gives a shit, you got plenty of sky outside, go enjoy it for the next 900 seconds.
It's covered by the RICO act (and other laws), and is known as extortion. It's basically summarized as, "I threaten to take legal action against you, if you don't pay me money."
They know perfectly well that Mr. Blogger, who may make hundreds a year, can't possibly defend himself against a single corporation who makes millions, or a group of corporations who make billions.
It's not even just the individual. They could take down Slashdot, as portions of the article are reused here. That *is* allowed by copyright law as fair use.
What these publishers are going to find out is, if they kill off the bloggers who are partially republishing their stories and providing links, the traffic to the original publication is going to drop. I won't say it would be huge. That all depends on the publication. How many people read the NY Times directly, and how many catch an interesting story on Slashdot and follow the link to the NY Times?
I strongly suspect that the average Mr. Blogger is not the target. They want the big fish with big money. Google News, Yahoo News, and other multi-million hit/day sites. I don't know, but I suspect, that they are already paying their tribute to the news corps for at least some of their feeds. This will severely impact mid-level news sites, who get tens of thousands of hits/day. They may make a few bucks at it from advertising, but that's a long way from being able to pay for feeds from AP, Reuters, UPI, etc. More often than not, the advertising revenue barely pays for their hosting.
As it's clear that they are litigious bastards, they will work their way down the ranks, until they're filing 100k "John Doe" lawsuits every week. It could very easily get to the point where if you posted more than a few words that could have been in another story, you owe or get shut down.
But, the litigious bastards will always win. Why? Because they have the money. They already own a decent portion of our political system, they can and will have laws changed in their favor. This has been proven time and time again. At very least, the litigious bastards can afford to keep it in court longer than you can.
Euros per square meter. But, that sounds like a formula for a black hole.
Europe = 9,938,000 sq/km
7,155,360,000 square kilometers compressed into 0.72 square meters. I assume that compression worked vertically on the same scale.. And they were worried about the LHC.
Damn real fake sky tile things. They'll be the end of us. The end of us all!
Can any of us guarantee that for 25 years we will have constant employment, at the same rate as we started, increases in pay growing with inflation? You can say "put half your pay in savings". So that still requires 12.5 years putting half your income into a savings or investment account. People get absolutely fucked that way too. My girlfriends 401k went from over $100k down to $12k. It's back up to $15k. 401k. Safe investment. It's your retirement nest egg. Well, until the stock market crashes, and all the funds tank.
"make your mortgage payment" sounds great on paper. I was employed constantly until November 2006. Before that, the longest period I was "out of work" was 3 days, which I opted to take between jobs.
None of us can predict that the job market will tank. That the real estate market will tank. That the stock market and investment funds will tank. No amount of planning or diversification of investments will really help that. Well, unless you're a "business too big to fail", and the government will toss you a few billion dollars to keep you going.
Having a bank call in your loan shouldn't be a big deal. You just go to another bank and get a loan to cover it. Except ... these days it's easy to be refused. You didn't have your job for enough years. Your credit dropped because you were late a few payments when you were laid off for 2 years, and couldn't find another job. But now that you're back on your feet, you'll be all set in 5 to 14 years, when the bad records fall off your credit report. Oh ya. You don't have 5 to 14 years to make arrangements when they call in your loan.
It's not about replicating sunlight. It's about making someone a metric fucktonne of money making LED simulated skies in ceiling panels.
According to the article, each tile is 288 LEDs. Excuse me while I do some math, so this will make sense in US dollars, and the size of a ceiling tile.
A standard office ceiling tile is 2'x4' (0.6mx1.2m).
The article shows a price of 1000 euros per square meter. (1 sq/m = 10.764 sq/ft).
92.90 euros per sq/ft, or $118.88 USD per sq/ft.
8 sq/ft per panel. or $951.04 per panel.
The density of the LEDs is pretty sparse. 36 LEDs per square foot, or 0.25 per square inch. So one LED per 4 square inches. That would explain why the room looks so dark, compared to the overcast day outside the window.
A modest size office space at 500 sq/ft room would cost roughly $60,000 to put this ceiling into. That's a lot of money to waste on ceiling tiles. It would have probably done very well during the dotcom bubble. Now, that's a lot of other equipment, or salaries for a few employees for a year.
They don't go into the cost of installation, nor MTBF of the equipment. If panels need to be changed yearly for whatever reason, that would get pretty damned expensive. The LEDs should live a long time, but who knows how long their control circuitry will survive.
I'd suspect it's something pretty close to that. Not necessarily everyone with a box that they call a server, but more likely every department who allocated a space as a "server room" or "datacenter". Someone else said it had to be 500 sq/ft with some other qualifications.
I do wonder if there are, for example, multiple agencies with their own spaces at places like Equinix.
Having so many diverse spaces is good for no single point of failure, but bad for management across the enterprise (being the government as a whole).
It would make a lot more sense for the government to own a handful of spaces (like a couple dozen maybe), the scale of the Equinix facilities. That would reduce the costs substantially over having a few thousand spaces being used.
You don't know how many times I've told people that. They're usually the same people who say "How could they have done it?", and then I have to break out years old writeups of the exploit.
Case in point, SQL injection. I was talking to some web programmers who apparently have worked in a bubble, and learned everything from the books, but glossed over the part about "never trust user input". They didn't get it. I demonstrated a SQL injection against their code. Then they were willing to listen.
Too many programmers see user input as being trustworthy. Back in the day, it was as simple as "don't allow ` or ; in lines you send to a system calls". People even screwed that up. Then it was "don't do system calls, do everything natively in your code". People ignored that. Then it became "never trust user input", and "sanitize any user provided data". It's sad but true, they still don't care.
I've introduced people to hacking tools and methodologies. It's not so they can hack. I "encourage" them to try to hack their own code. Code it right the first time. Then attack it to prove that it is right. And keep trying to break into it. Learn better techniques, and teach me something. I don't mind in the least if a coworker can show me that I'm wrong. It's worse if a malicious 3rd party does.
There's no excuse for someone not to know and use the same tools that attackers use, to defend themselves.
Honestly, my main purpose in getting it was to watch HD DirecTV stuff on it. It's been a few years, and I don't have that any more. I ended up watching everything on it. Even when friends had me over to watch stuff on their huge plasma TVs, it still was better. Size does matter. Having a dark room to watch it in really helps. It has a good contrast ratio and brightness, but the darker you can make the theater, the better it looks.
It's moved with me into 4 different houses. I'll describe each. :)
Actually, so you can see, This is the first incarnation of it. This house had a perfect room for it. It was a rectangular room. On one side, there were folding vented doors going to the rest of the house. On the other side was a huge sliding glass door. In the summer, we simply couldn't keep the room cool. I put aluminum foil over the entire sliding door, held in place with packing tape. It sounds cheesy, but it worked great. We closed the verticle blinds over it, and it just looked like it was dark out and the blinds were closed. Where the A/C had a hard time keeping the house at 78F in the summer, that room was now 72F, with the vents mostly closed.
We just watched it projected on the wall. As I found, that's not the most desirable way, but in comparison to the 32" CRT, it was heaven.
In the second house, we bought a pulldown screen. That winter we learned a secret. If you have your screen hanging 2 feet in front of a fireplace, it's a bad idea to watch a movie while you have a nice fire going.. No fire, but it did warp the center of the screen slightly. It was ok, except for when the scene panned horizontally. It was like looking through a warped glass window. The subwoofer also blew out, so I got a much better one. I had to set it so it wouldn't rattle the windows, as the noise is distracting. :)
In the third house, it was the first house I owned, so it was worth doing it right. All the speakers were mounted perfectly, and tuned within about 2dB. I bought proper screen material, and made a hardwood frame, and kept tension on the screen with clips and bungee cords, and hung it properly. The setup was beautiful. The screen itself was something like 6'x10', but we didn't use the whole space. Depending on what is shown, the aspect ratio changes, so we always wanted the picture to fit on the screen. We did adjust the shown size slightly to make the viewing angle appropriate for the couch distance. I also upgraded some of the speakers. It was nice. We could watch movies, and if we wanted to go have a smoke break, we'd go to the back porch, and then it was like just watching a big plasma instead of sitting in a theater. The sound was clear enough that it was very good, although we (obviously) lost the proper surround sound feeling.
In the 4th house, the new space was as large as the previous, and it was a nice rectangular room. We found that the screen material got lost in the move. We just went with a king size sheet. Ya, that's worse than a nice flat wall, but unfortunately the builder had other ideas, and we had to cover a big window. {sigh} The space is a bit "live", which took some work to fix.
It's currently disassembled. A friend wanted to record music in the space, so it became an impromptu recording studio. That went well. :) We're mostly set up again, but I need to order screen material, and build a new screen frame.
All in all, the price hasn't been bad. The first bulb finally burned out at somewhere just over 3,000 hours. I went pricing better projectors. I couldn't justify a better one. There are a few, but not many in the consumer grade/price range. They're really expensive. I found a seller on eBay with new bulbs for about $125. So we'll be back to watching
Maybe you should consider what the cable company does...
The home is typically pre-wired. They are not responsible for the testing or verification of all wiring in the home. The attach their cable to the home wiring, which should already be properly grounded, and put their cable modem in, which attaches to the residential wired coax and residential wired power. It is not required or expected, of a technician installing a cable modem, to review the residence for proper grounding. It most likely states in the contract or terms of service, that you should have an electrician evaluate your electrical system, and provide a ground as necessary.
I did find a number of other forum posts, where people were complaining that Comcast *wouldn't* install service, because they did *not* have a proper ground. They instructed the customer to contact an electrician or the power company, to install a grounding rod.
When having T1's installed, I've had the providers show me where the "good earth ground" is for them to use, and sign off on the fact that if any equipment is damaged because the ground is not actually a "good earth ground", that I am responsible for any damaged equipment. We had to comply with other requirements also, such as 3/4" thick polyurethane coated plywood board mounted to the wall, for them to install their equipment to, dedicated power circuits, UPS, etc.
We have insufficient information to have an educated opinion. Maybe it was grounded. Maybe it was grounded at the pole. If the house is pre-wired, it should be assumed that it is properly grounded inside.
We do know that lightning does not always follow the shortest path to ground. It can. If you've ever seen high speed photography of a lightning strike, it's not a single arc from point A to B. Even still, there is a huge electrical/static charge and EMP related to, but not directly resulting from, such a discharge.
I live in the "lightning capital of the US". We are very aware of lightning strikes and their results. Anyone who has lived here long has seen what can (and does) happen, even in perfectly grounded environments. If you suffer a direct strike, virtually anything connected to wires, no matter how well grounded and surge protected, can be damaged. It is very common for people to disconnect all of their valuable electronics during a storm. Physically disconnecting them from their sources, not just turning off a switch. Lightning that just went miles through the air will easily jump a fraction of an inch in a switch.
I've seen computers that were turned off, attached to surge protectors that were turned off, where the switch, fuse, and internal components of the surge protector were melted. Heavier electrical devices tend to handle it better, but I've even see those with holes burned in the sides of their casing, where the lightning jumped from them to another piece of metal.
We had several computers damaged in one office, because the telephone and network cables ran under the floor. The building was an older one, with a crawlspace under it. There was a nearby (but not direct) lightning strike, which caused a static charge under the building. Several seemingly unrelated computers and telephones, were damaged or destroyed. Two cables were rendered unusable, as several conductors were broken due to the strike (probably melted). Being under the building, and not touching the ground, weren't enough to protect them.
If we were provided detailed schematics and photographs of the wiring, including grounding, for anything conductive (power, telephone, cable, plumbing, TV antenna mast, satellite dish, etc), we could make an educated opinion to what happened. For all I know, the lightning struck the roof of the house, hitting the main power lines coming it. it then could have traveled through the electrical system, and back out the c
In 2008, Zimbabwe was considering making minimum wage $100 Billion. Of course, their dollar wasn't worth quite the same as the USD.
It's always nice to blame someone else. Blame the cable company for a lightning strike? Why stop there? Lets get 'em for the next hurricane.
My front porch light burnt out after the pizza delivery guy came yesterday. Can I blame him too?
Or, there's a little something people keep saying here about correlation and causation. I'm sure they'll chime in soon.
Yup, the "Tesla Oscillator" and tele-geodynamics. It should be clarified, it wasn't an electromagnetic field, it was a steam powered oscillator. He did demonstrate that harmonic oscillations could be felt throughout a building, with a very small input force. He was looking at sending waves (and therefor power) around the world, much like his work in harmonic oscillations in the atmosphere, which was people dubbed his death ray. For the world wide scale, the waves were spaced something like 1.75 hrs apart. Extremely ELF. :)
The story you're trying to tell is of a building on Wall Street, that was under construction. And obviously the "local town" was New York City. It's questionable if that really happened or not, as New York actually does sit on a fault line, the "125th Street fault line". The story was probably a total fabrication, based on the 1884 which was a magnitude 5.2 earthquake. It's much harder to attribute the two 2001 magnitude 2 earthquakes to him. From what I've read of Tesla, it would be very reasonable to believe that he claimed to have caused that, simply to draw attention to his work. He was a brilliant scientist, but not so good at business or public relations. If he were alive today, he'd be locked up in a mental hospital, and we would never see any of his work.
Even if you did manage to find a news article from the time that had that specific citation, I would be skeptical about the truth. Fact checking was limited, while sensationalized stories sold papers.
Tesla did fabulous work on ideas that had never been explored. There are plenty of strange and natural occurrences, which have been attributed to him, because his work did have strange results. I believe it was from his Colorado Springs lab that he induced sparks from people's feet and from water taps.
Well, it's the closest that Hollywood has managed to come to a biography in years... :)
She's cute, but totally my type. That, and her horrible accent on that show makes me cringe. :)
Actually, that would have been "Consolidated Edison" eventually shortened to "ConEd". Otherwise, you're absolutely right. How much did he cheat the world from, by not funding Tesla? We'll never know.
Well, unless the conspiracy theory that Tesla managed to make himself immortal, and moved to Argentina to pursue high energy experiments for gravity control and space travel are true. I kid you not, I picked up a really good book on Tesla. The last two chapters went into this wild conspiracy stuff. What an awful way to ruin a really informative book. I was under the distinct impression that the publishers read the first few chapters, and confirmed the facts, but no on bothered to read the whole thing before it went to press.
Heh. That's pretty much what I was going to say.. If he had the patent(s) on it, he'd praise it as the best thing since ... well ... the light bulb. If he didn't, he'd be pushing all the reasons that it was horrible and dangerous.
That's the way he played.. Otherwise, we would be praising the successor to the Joseph Swan light bulb.
Patents are a bitch, and Edison was the original patent troll.
It's more like, they were already making the claims in 2010. The organizations listed said that they either had minimal interaction, or no interaction, and no requirements to do such testing. They continue repeating it through 2011.
I don't have the time to investigate it, but I'm sure if you'd like to prove me wrong, you can call the TSA, and other listed agencies, and ask them what the extent of their actions with the TSA and testing the safety of the TSA equipment is.
If you'd really like to clear the air on it, I can give you an email account at my news site, and you can write up an article on it yourself, which I will publish.
I'm not too proud to say that I'm wrong. I won't say that I'm wrong because an organization repeated an old disproven claim.
Ya, I'm not a nuclear physicist. :) The point still stands. Is that 10 microrem on a single pulse, scan line, one second of exposure? Wanting it to be safe, we can assume from entrance to exit. But if we were working for the company who produces them, we'd put the best spin possible on it, and say "10 microrem" without explaining that it's on a single pulse or scan line. Sure, let people assume it's total exposure, and we'll pretend that none of it goes off it is ever reflected outside of this uncontained space. In reality, it's very likely that you get at least 3 or 4 doses. Probably 2 while you're waiting to go in, one while you're in it, and one while you're standing on the other side waiting for your shoes.
ya, but it would likely be more useful to know what the exposure area is. Just because the badge turns black only means that you did indeed receive exposure.
There's an easy explanation. "I'm a contractor for the NRC, and I am exposed to radiation as part of my job. I am to always wear my dosimeter, so I am sure I haven't exceeded the legal limits. Whereas you are using equipment that does involve radiation (pointing to the carry-on scanner and body scanner), it is important to my health that I know my total exposure per year."
On second though, their eyes will glaze over by the time I got to "NRC". That, and I don't know enough about the NRC's operations to keep the story going. :) I could say "classified", but one phone call will show that lying.
I've had all kinds of questions about stuff I'm carrying. Lots of people have been confused about what I'm carrying. Most of it I can say "computer stuff", and they're happy. You know, it's easier to check my bag with a firearm in it, than carry a second laptop through security. I don't do it on every trip, but often enough.
Oh, and I just found This link from June, 2011 where they say all the people who are monitoring their equipment. This story from Dec, 2010 states that it's false. I guess the lies are still good, as long as not everyone knows...
The TSA says... The thing is, the devices are unregulated. There is no one checking to make sure that they're putting out 10 urem. They don't allow security agents to wear dosimeters. No regulatory body is allowed to test them. The TSA assures us that they are checked yearly. They don't go any further in their description of "checked". Is it an operational test, that shows an image can be returned, or is it a true measurement of the emitted radiation?
One of the problems with the measured dosage also is, it's 10urem in a very discrete beam. It then scans your whole body. This is in a fashion similar to the electron gun scanning on a CRT. It's the cumulative effect of these scans which is in question. So from the time you step in, to the time you step out, is that 10 urem, 100 mrem, or 1 rem? I've been through security roughly 50 times this year. If I had opted to go through the machines, have I been exposed to 50 rem? The EPA legal limit for a nuclear worker is 5 rem/yr.
In hospitals, we've seen that either due to hardware, programming, or operator error, the wrong dosage is applied. Sometimes it's been with catastrophic effects.
Just because it's what you might get elsewhere doesn't make it any better. That just means I'm exposed to more. It means that we've increased our dosage beyond normal background radiation.
Consider it this way... In 1980, the EPA showed the average carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere to be 9ppm. Toxicity is 100ppm. If carbon monoxide were a viable test for whatever, would it be acceptable to breath straight carbon monoxide for 15 seconds?
The result from this carbon monoxide test would be apparent much quicker than the radiation results. Either way, it's the same. I already get my dose from the atmosphere, I don't need to add to it.
I've been considering picking up a geiger counter, and carrying it through. Sure, they'll get pissed when they find out, but if I can say "Hey, you just exposed me to 10 rem!" then I'd have something. I'd probably also be arrested for interfering with the TSA, blah, blah, blah. Since I haven't been able to justify spending a few hundred bucks just to fuck with the TSA (and the impending apocalypse, but that's for another time), no matter how right or wrong I may be. Hey, I may find out that it's really trivial. Then my only reason for not going through will be so they'll stop taking pictures of my penis. There's enough pictures of it out there on the Internet already.
... and to further that ...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-glossed-over-cancer-concerns