Well, the complexity of this redundancy reduces the reliability overall, and it has a cost.
sort of reminds me of the joke by Mitch Hedberg, the "an escalator can never break, it can only become stairs." IE if PC redundancy is done right, then yes (for example) it might have 6 smaller drives instead of 2 drives, and 2 controllers instead of 1, it will have some hardware failures more often than the simpler system. However after the first hardware failure, it essentially becomes the simpler system without the redundancy, until you fix it. IE if the main failure component is hard disks, with redundancy you may have 3* the number of (smaller) drives and you are then (roughly) 3* more likely to have some drive failure, than the single drive system (say over a 3 year span) So while you may have a 10% chance of failure in 3 years with the single drive system, you may have a 1-(0.9*0.9*0.9) 27% chance of a single drive failure in the redundant system. But you have only a 5.4% (0.1*0.27+0.1*0.27) chance of having 2 hard drive failures in the 3 drive system in 3 years , instead of the 10% chance in the single drive non redundant case (add a hot spare, your under 1% redundant failure rate). So even if you weren't allowed to fix the redundant system, the likely hood of a disk failure downing the system would still be at least 1/2 as likely as the non redundant system. A 6 drive redundancy (ie a hot spare) instead of 2 drives non redundant works out much better, ie 26% chance of non-redundant failure vs 1% chance of a triple failure (or double in the same array) of the redundant system...
Cost is a valid issue, increased reliability has a hardware cost, which if it doesn't outweigh the cost of a system crash, then yes you don't need it.
Many (most?) seam to use RAID for a backup (server), just not as the backup. IE it takes more time to rebuild a backup, than to rebuild a RAID array, and if the backup goes down, it is often as big of a issue as if the main server goes down. (main server goes down, you have a backup so no work lost, users do what work they can offline until it is back up.) The backup servers I worked on had RAID on the main server, and the Backup server, why not?
I have wondered why the post office couldn't go electric for many things. IE would it be more efficient to just have a scanner at the post office, you stick in your post card it is scanned and shredded and recycled. They print it out at the other end. If they charge $.20 for post cards, you give a $.05 discount if you have the card scanned, or designed one at a online site. If you give the post office your email address for delivery they pay you $.05 to take e-delivery of post cards, and letters... I would still appreciate the "fraud is a federal crime, if through USPS" protection for those incoming emails, thus more apt to read (and getting paid!!!) People not wanting to use computers can use it. Other packages still delivered, so still be tied to a physical address, don't need multiple information (ie your physical address is also a email.) Post cards could actually be secure (ok this one would likely require USPS to supply some encryption.)
Sounds like this guys goals might be more inline with the other subset of RV's. The subset where its more about being able showing off your bigger toys (and thus your superiority) to as many strangers as possible. I think my grandparents were getting sucked into that group, until they escaped (probably didn't have enough money to compete.) They used to drive around to campsites with their co-competitors, and rarely leave the glow of the TV/etc.
I don't see how access to all fault codes would cause issues. Access to all troubleshooting information related to all faults could easily. It is already the case that you must have access to all the fault codes, and it is already the case that you will find a simple description of those codes fairly easily. It isn't difficult to imagine that giving enough detailed info (like simultaneous real time access to all inputs to the ECU) that lets competitors/aftermarket reverse engineer the controller very quickly... And again similar with the ability to repair your car, the needed info is required to be in a open format today. However simply giving the same level of access as dealers have to everyone (through opened protocol information) , today, would definitively trigger major fines from the EPA.
FYI, in most locations where you are required to pass emissions that would technically prevent you from passing. In California it could very likely be illegal (definitely illegal if installed for a profit on a non emissions exempt vehicle.) I am not saying emissions would be worse, I am saying that is not the only requirement. For example if you put a new engine in a 1984 vehicle, if it has all original intake/exhaust it only needs to meet 1984 standards, otherwise it has to meet the CA standards of when the engine was manufactured (if newer.) So if you put a 2007 engine into it, it would likely fail unless you got a entire 2007 CA emissions package as well.
It is somewhat understandable, after all with the DIY kit you could easily be only emissions compliant during the test then change maps to other criteria (might be power, engine life, many things) seconds later. I do realize if you hate mother nature, one could just unplug sensors on any factory setup, immediately after testing. But it is less likely to give you any advantages (more difficult to modify for your gain.)
Basically what I see happening, these cars will not have any changes, just that even licensed dealers inside those areas will be blocked from anything but the basic information (putting them on level with all shops.) With the current open standards it is possible to add a external logger and do all troubleshooting (obviously of events after the logger is installed), those not licensed are not allowed to override anything inside the on board controllers for testing, and are not allowed access to any advanced troubleshooting/data stored in the controller, that's nearly impossible to change. I spent some time with a former employer implementing ISO/SAE specified communications (off highway, I wasn't legally obligated to meet the spec.) I went to a number of industry meetings, and from what I recall. The standards specified a minimum amount of information that you were required to broadcast, and many things, like logging faults were not required, but if implemented had to be accessible by the published protocols (they didn't want to force extra memory, etc on manufactures) But they also specified how you could/should transmit proprietary information. The justifications make sense to me. Their needs to be a financial incentive for development of additional troubleshooting tools, and for the manufactures to build better loggers, tools, and proactive reliability trends, etc. But also needed was to make sure that the industry could make sure that transmissions, engines, etc would be electrically compatible. Also all shops have the ability to troubleshoot these systems without fees and NDA's, etc (but without any of the advanced proprietary tools that the manufacture go to great cost to develop) We did have some really powerful tools we used to develop, that you just can't realistically allow open access to. For instance with my current laptop I can easily change many parameters that will increase power (and often efficiency), etc and often at the cost of emissions or individual components life (transmission, after treatment) for example. Those signing the proper papers in the US can get access, but each change must be documented (key server inside company servers), if changes were made that hadn't passed government emissions standards then the manufacture could be accessed very large fines (and possibly jail time, if the proposed standards take affect at the end of the year) I can say that some places in Europe prohibit these preferential tools, in those places that prohibited this, these tools are disabled, and no one can make many updates/fixes, and instead of updating parameters they then would have to either replace the hardware or have it "refurbished" outside the country.
In theory the GPS could be more fair in pricing. IE of my 20 mile commute 7 miles are on privately owned and maintained roads(30%), and another 5-10% is out of state. If we ignore all other issues with GPS, states should jump the gas taxes higher, and give tax rebates to everyone with a GPS gathering data for them (maybe a $1000+ yearly registration fee for alternative fuel vehicles, again with a "rebate" for GPS tracking data.) So only out of state electric cars get a free ride (at least until it's nationwide shared toll.) throw in some in road weight sensors, to slap those heavy/overloaded vehicles with a premium... Use the public GIS data to figure out the actual public use... Heck even figure out different rates, ie gravel roads cost $X, bridges cost $Y, paved $Z. Then they can get people to car pool/bus... through the $10/mile sections.
gasoline taxes never cover more than 60% (according to oregon website of their road dept budget 45% of revenue is from gasoline tax) of the road maintenance in any state of the US that I can find, let alone pay for road construction. The rest comes from income, property, or sales taxes which certainly covers cyclists equally. Since all cyclists also own cars (that I personally know anyway), their is really no rational way to say they pay any less for the roads. Actually due to the gas tax % below 100% of maintenance costs, when you drive your car, you do more damage to the road than you pay for in incremental tax (gas), so in fact the cyclist is paying more in road taxes (actually racking up less debt per mile, since they cause no damage)
Because It's just not necessary. most bacteria just cant make it without light or heat down to extreme depths. My well water comes straight up from 600' down, a cold dark place, then a short horizontal distance. It is filtered first underground through sand, rock, then at the house, and finally with a carbon filter. I think the need for all the chemical treatments comes from the city not having all that much control of the horizontal runs. Constantly having some small sections repaired (introducing contaminants) and dealing with the possibility of back flow from houses without (or malfunctioned) back flow devices, unused sections exposed to good growing environments...
phones can be recorded at any-time, paper is "hard" evidence and any fraud going through federal mail is automatically a felony. Email has to be more difficult unless something is built into the system, and without a context, and history it isn't all that convincing. IE if whistle blower turns on him, a retained email you received isn't good evidence, unless we have a hard log somewhere that has the meaningful bits in it. If you record a call you have voice prints, and difficulty to have undetectable modifications to that recording...
Some times it matters, I didn't care about Michael Duvall getting caught bragging about his indiscretions with some young thing in front of a open mike (even him being some family values republican). Until that some young thing is a lobbyist, we don't need another loophole where it is now OK to pay for the guys piece of ass, as long as that isn't her only job...
Then those who don't want one, get it forced on them just record a safe drive to work, then installs a lcd screen playing that back in front of the camera so they get a friendly view. Or figure out a way to just play it directly into the camera.
It's almost impossible to say absolutely , but it is likely just a shift (and likely a net carbon loss, currently.) If you compare Oil to Oil Car engines are in the 10-35% efficiency and power plants are in the 45-50% efficient range (reclaim the energy the car radiator throws away, run at peak efficiency 24/7.) But you lose 3-5% in transmission/transformers you must step through. then another 2-20% in charging the batteries (more like 25% for Pb, NiMH LiPo are at the lower end, but still the charger transformers them selves...) The hybrid part does saves carbon emission, and the not having to run the engine means the in car engine would always be in the 35% of car efficiency. We haven't even touched on the batteries, which likely take at least 10% of the lifetime energy storage also used in the creation (mining of componets, plastics...) Since less than 45% of our power comes from nuclear/other carbon neutral, this takes care of some base load, but any car charging will come on top of the base load (even at night) and will likely end up burning fuel. I am calling it a wash, all the mined copper/aluminum carrying electric to your charger, and the extra engine wear on the mined steel as both infrastructures needed and on a similar scale.
How do you verify a police report? Should amazon then call to verify the report is really over a kindle? Their are answers to those and more exist, they may even be simple enough for just a few cases. But amazon is a big retailer and obviously doesn't want to deal with the issues for little reward for them. Having been a AT&T victim 10 years ago, where they got the wrong address for my cell phone account, and thus labeled my $125 purchase of phone as fraudulent, and couldn't ever get that label removed (and thus I have never dealt with AT&T since because of this.) I can understand a smart company just not wanting to get involved.
it is a fair question about our society. What good does it do to punish any law breakers. IE when you jail a murder does the victum return to life... (be it any un recoverable crime, murder/rape/molestation/arson/securities fraud) Sometimes it helps the victims feel better... However in this case with a device, and likely a opportunity thief, they may call amazon for help/support or decide once it is of no value for them they may return it. Or a reward may be much more affective (at a lower price.) Or even if it is a young person they may decide crime doesn't pay.
Seams like a fair reply to the situation. Google simply got the necessary rights to recoup their costs for scanning in works, that without the agreement would have been lost to all but a very very small handful of people. Google also cleared the way for anyone else to follow the same path. The complaints all seam to flow from 1 of 3 lines either a) These works might compete against our copyrighted works b) we hate google because they are successful c) why didn't we think of that. So googles response along the lines of "we'll share at a reasonable cost", is all that is necessary. Any complaints along the lines of yours "but it should be free" should be muted by a low cost for something that would never have been made available to anyone without google.
I can instead choose to pay both them and a retailer surcharge for a DRM-protected copy of the book?
Isn't that how most retail sales work? (they are often the same price, just the OEM takes a smaller cut for the retailers service) I can buy the same book from oreilly.com or amazon.com heck soon you will have the choice, buy a kindle DRM'd version, or a non DRM'd version from either as well. The kindle is a great example, you can buy a DRM'd book from amazon and have it loaded onto your device automatically for $9.99, or go to oreilly, buy it without DRM for less, ($7.99) then transfer it to a memory card... I would hate to buy any DRM stuff from Amazon, but to not need a PC in the loop, it may be worth it at times (if you had the device and no PC handy for example.) Same as Itunes, and other music e-tailers. Buy the CD and rip, transfer. or buy the DRM'd crap straight into the thing? both actually have a audience.
(My view) Isolated recording are OK, and using those recordings to investigate a open case is also OK (subpoena/etc). As long as public recording aren't stored for long periods, or interlinked, then the benefit out weighs the harm, otherwise the potential harm is stronger than the benefits. The problem comes when you cover huge areas with linked together real time surveillance. Especially when that is then used behind closed doors (figuratively). Then they (those with access to the link) have the ability to harass, intimidate, and fabricate beyond any barriers. Ask any officer, they can generally follow any car/person for 15 minutes and find a legitimate law/reason to ticket/pull over that person. If your not allowed to use the same resources in your defense, because they are "off limits" Good luck explaining/expanding out the tape to show why you took the actions you took. Basically those with the 100% coverage have 100% power, because anyone (whistle blowers) who ever exposes anything from outside that system can become a target with no defense. With 24/7 coverage you cannot escape harassment or defend yourself from it, because everyone, almost everyday breaks some law, if someone is looking close enough.
I don't have problems with isolated camera/audio recording, especially when you are documenting something you are also experiencing at the same time. Because their is 1) some difficulty in using that 2) Only way to equalize a "authority" in the system (ie it is difficult to overcome a lying person who builds trust, without something else) 3) it is limited in scope. If we allow a coverage of the entire (public space) world in interlinked video recorded forever (storage capacity is coming), those with access will always be able to find you most compromising moment and be able to use that to shut you up/ manipulate you to their desire.
A little more research, and I think I finally have it. It is simply the difference between theory or concept, and practice. The best breeder reactor designs that have been built or tested (in combination with conventional designs) result in possibly 3* more total power but at higher costs (almost double the current nuclear electric cost, or 3* the coal cost.) Their are concepts that in theory could reach the 100-300* power mark for nuclear per volume, but at a even higher infrastructure cost (another 2*). So we are still stuck in a spot where nuclear is not feasible for more than 20-40% of our power without big risks and bigger dollars. And those risks are not worth taking until we do something to push the cost of conventional power to at least 3* (more like 8*) the cost they are now. But if we push coal/NG/etc any further then those costs would also sky rocket. So the free market has found close to the current optimal power solution, but it is too complicated for most to see that we have to have some nuclear power, but going all nuclear (or all conventional ) is still very impractical.
does ? GPLv2 permits to use software & library in proprietary programs
Oddly enough I do think GPLv2 provides more power to the original authors, assuming a dual licensed agreement, than any of the more open licenses. IE if someone produces a product that extends this, they have few options. 1) Publish their entire program and changes as GPL'd code themselves 2) feed these changes back to TomTom so that TomTom publishes the code for them 3) contact TomTom for a different license 4) don't publish.
So GPLv2 leaves TomTom with the most power, over their creation, of any open of the source licenses. This includes proprietary programs.
GPS doesn't handle re-routing according to overpass height clearances.
Are their printed maps that have this information? I know the information is generally available in a digital format, and many GPS's allow you to define routes on a PC then upload them. So I guess you could write them on maps, and read them on the fly. Or you could have it in your GPS that tells you to use exit ramp in "5 miles", "exit now". The important thing is, does the driver do this research, or someone else. And if it is someone else, which is more precise to transmit the information without error?
feeder-breeder reactors that are something close the 97-99 times
I am curious if you have some reference to exactly what the 97-99* "efficiency" means, since that can be twisted to mean anything, does it mean something different than 3* the energy from the same amount of uranium? which is the best I can understand from gleaming through the wikipedia articles,etc. They seam to say at the end result is that current breeder reactors end up being ~3% efficient at consuming all the uranium energy available, while conventional reactors are @ ~1% efficiency. With breeder reactors costing 5* the cost, even using only 1/3 the fuel (which is a impressive number) I am still not sure we have a nuclear only energy solution yet (at least not for more than 25 years, and then only at electric costs around $.20/kwhr not the $.06 we expect now?)
See above post about Uranium being so readily available they stopped prospecting in the peak of nuclear weapon
That's also completed made up B.S. with no meaningful reference. Because the mine with the worlds largest known reserve of uranium, and over half of the known useable reserves of uranium, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam,_South_Australia/ and 1/4 of all uranuim production, was first discovered as a mine in 1975. And the size of reserve was not known (and was only sized up in the last 5 years.) We shouldn't just make stuff up to make nuclear sound like the perfect and only needed solution. We should be somewhat realistic and realize nuclear is just part of any energy solution, And even realize this same solar pre-heating of water would also work great as a add-on to nuclear power, because nuclear is not a limitless energy supply like you are claiming.
To make your claims true, breeder reactors would have to be 250* more efficient than current reactors, not the 3* that they can be. Your post I responded to is about "stockpiles" you claimed we have enough "stockpiles" for millennium, and without breeder reactors. That is off by several orders of magnitude because it 1) it can't (currently) be reconfigured without breeder reactors, and 2) even with breeder reactors their is still not enough stockpiles, even if some magical process comes out that we get 100* the use out of all the re-spent/stockpiled stuff, their is just not a millennium of energy their. We have not been using nuclear long enough that at 3* (or even 100*) the efficiency to cover 5* the amount of energy we have ever produced from nuclear, over 50* the time frame from stockpiles, which is exactly what your post seams to claim, without any reference/reasoning to back it up. Other than some magical nuclear tech? are you holding out on us?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the complexity of this redundancy reduces the reliability overall, and it has a cost.
sort of reminds me of the joke by Mitch Hedberg, the "an escalator can never break, it can only become stairs."
IE if PC redundancy is done right, then yes (for example) it might have 6 smaller drives instead of 2 drives, and 2 controllers instead of 1, it will have some hardware failures more often than the simpler system. However after the first hardware failure, it essentially becomes the simpler system without the redundancy, until you fix it.
IE if the main failure component is hard disks, with redundancy you may have 3* the number of (smaller) drives and you are then (roughly) 3* more likely to have some drive failure, than the single drive system (say over a 3 year span) So while you may have a 10% chance of failure in 3 years with the single drive system, you may have a 1-(0.9*0.9*0.9) 27% chance of a single drive failure in the redundant system. But you have only a 5.4% (0.1*0.27+0.1*0.27) chance of having 2 hard drive failures in the 3 drive system in 3 years , instead of the 10% chance in the single drive non redundant case (add a hot spare, your under 1% redundant failure rate).
So even if you weren't allowed to fix the redundant system, the likely hood of a disk failure downing the system would still be at least 1/2 as likely as the non redundant system. A 6 drive redundancy (ie a hot spare) instead of 2 drives non redundant works out much better, ie 26% chance of non-redundant failure vs 1% chance of a triple failure (or double in the same array) of the redundant system...
Cost is a valid issue, increased reliability has a hardware cost, which if it doesn't outweigh the cost of a system crash, then yes you don't need it.
No sane IT expert would use RAID for a backup
Many (most?) seam to use RAID for a backup (server), just not as the backup. IE it takes more time to rebuild a backup, than to rebuild a RAID array, and if the backup goes down, it is often as big of a issue as if the main server goes down. (main server goes down, you have a backup so no work lost, users do what work they can offline until it is back up.) The backup servers I worked on had RAID on the main server, and the Backup server, why not?
I have wondered why the post office couldn't go electric for many things. IE would it be more efficient to just have a scanner at the post office, you stick in your post card it is scanned and shredded and recycled. They print it out at the other end. If they charge $.20 for post cards, you give a $.05 discount if you have the card scanned, or designed one at a online site. If you give the post office your email address for delivery they pay you $.05 to take e-delivery of post cards, and letters...
I would still appreciate the "fraud is a federal crime, if through USPS" protection for those incoming emails, thus more apt to read (and getting paid!!!) People not wanting to use computers can use it. Other packages still delivered, so still be tied to a physical address, don't need multiple information (ie your physical address is also a email.) Post cards could actually be secure (ok this one would likely require USPS to supply some encryption.)
Sounds like this guys goals might be more inline with the other subset of RV's. The subset where its more about being able showing off your bigger toys (and thus your superiority) to as many strangers as possible. I think my grandparents were getting sucked into that group, until they escaped (probably didn't have enough money to compete.) They used to drive around to campsites with their co-competitors, and rarely leave the glow of the TV/etc.
I don't see how access to all fault codes would cause issues. Access to all troubleshooting information related to all faults could easily. It is already the case that you must have access to all the fault codes, and it is already the case that you will find a simple description of those codes fairly easily. It isn't difficult to imagine that giving enough detailed info (like simultaneous real time access to all inputs to the ECU) that lets competitors/aftermarket reverse engineer the controller very quickly...
And again similar with the ability to repair your car, the needed info is required to be in a open format today. However simply giving the same level of access as dealers have to everyone (through opened protocol information) , today, would definitively trigger major fines from the EPA.
FYI, in most locations where you are required to pass emissions that would technically prevent you from passing. In California it could very likely be illegal (definitely illegal if installed for a profit on a non emissions exempt vehicle.)
I am not saying emissions would be worse, I am saying that is not the only requirement. For example if you put a new engine in a 1984 vehicle, if it has all original intake/exhaust it only needs to meet 1984 standards, otherwise it has to meet the CA standards of when the engine was manufactured (if newer.) So if you put a 2007 engine into it, it would likely fail unless you got a entire 2007 CA emissions package as well.
It is somewhat understandable, after all with the DIY kit you could easily be only emissions compliant during the test then change maps to other criteria (might be power, engine life, many things) seconds later.
I do realize if you hate mother nature, one could just unplug sensors on any factory setup, immediately after testing. But it is less likely to give you any advantages (more difficult to modify for your gain.)
Basically what I see happening, these cars will not have any changes, just that even licensed dealers inside those areas will be blocked from anything but the basic information (putting them on level with all shops.) With the current open standards it is possible to add a external logger and do all troubleshooting (obviously of events after the logger is installed), those not licensed are not allowed to override anything inside the on board controllers for testing, and are not allowed access to any advanced troubleshooting/data stored in the controller, that's nearly impossible to change.
I spent some time with a former employer implementing ISO/SAE specified communications (off highway, I wasn't legally obligated to meet the spec.) I went to a number of industry meetings, and from what I recall.
The standards specified a minimum amount of information that you were required to broadcast, and many things, like logging faults were not required, but if implemented had to be accessible by the published protocols (they didn't want to force extra memory, etc on manufactures) But they also specified how you could/should transmit proprietary information. The justifications make sense to me. Their needs to be a financial incentive for development of additional troubleshooting tools, and for the manufactures to build better loggers, tools, and proactive reliability trends, etc. But also needed was to make sure that the industry could make sure that transmissions, engines, etc would be electrically compatible. Also all shops have the ability to troubleshoot these systems without fees and NDA's, etc (but without any of the advanced proprietary tools that the manufacture go to great cost to develop)
We did have some really powerful tools we used to develop, that you just can't realistically allow open access to. For instance with my current laptop I can easily change many parameters that will increase power (and often efficiency), etc and often at the cost of emissions or individual components life (transmission, after treatment) for example. Those signing the proper papers in the US can get access, but each change must be documented (key server inside company servers), if changes were made that hadn't passed government emissions standards then the manufacture could be accessed very large fines (and possibly jail time, if the proposed standards take affect at the end of the year)
I can say that some places in Europe prohibit these preferential tools, in those places that prohibited this, these tools are disabled, and no one can make many updates/fixes, and instead of updating parameters they then would have to either replace the hardware or have it "refurbished" outside the country.
In theory the GPS could be more fair in pricing. IE of my 20 mile commute 7 miles are on privately owned and maintained roads(30%), and another 5-10% is out of state. If we ignore all other issues with GPS, states should jump the gas taxes higher, and give tax rebates to everyone with a GPS gathering data for them (maybe a $1000+ yearly registration fee for alternative fuel vehicles, again with a "rebate" for GPS tracking data.) So only out of state electric cars get a free ride (at least until it's nationwide shared toll.) throw in some in road weight sensors, to slap those heavy/overloaded vehicles with a premium... Use the public GIS data to figure out the actual public use... Heck even figure out different rates, ie gravel roads cost $X, bridges cost $Y, paved $Z. Then they can get people to car pool/bus... through the $10/mile sections.
where cyclists (who pay nothing) have more rights
gasoline taxes never cover more than 60% (according to oregon website of their road dept budget 45% of revenue is from gasoline tax) of the road maintenance in any state of the US that I can find, let alone pay for road construction. The rest comes from income, property, or sales taxes which certainly covers cyclists equally. Since all cyclists also own cars (that I personally know anyway), their is really no rational way to say they pay any less for the roads. Actually due to the gas tax % below 100% of maintenance costs, when you drive your car, you do more damage to the road than you pay for in incremental tax (gas), so in fact the cyclist is paying more in road taxes (actually racking up less debt per mile, since they cause no damage)
Because It's just not necessary.
most bacteria just cant make it without light or heat down to extreme depths. My well water comes straight up from 600' down, a cold dark place, then a short horizontal distance. It is filtered first underground through sand, rock, then at the house, and finally with a carbon filter. I think the need for all the chemical treatments comes from the city not having all that much control of the horizontal runs. Constantly having some small sections repaired (introducing contaminants) and dealing with the possibility of back flow from houses without (or malfunctioned) back flow devices, unused sections exposed to good growing environments...
phones can be recorded at any-time, paper is "hard" evidence and any fraud going through federal mail is automatically a felony. Email has to be more difficult unless something is built into the system, and without a context, and history it isn't all that convincing. IE if whistle blower turns on him, a retained email you received isn't good evidence, unless we have a hard log somewhere that has the meaningful bits in it. If you record a call you have voice prints, and difficulty to have undetectable modifications to that recording...
Some times it matters, I didn't care about Michael Duvall getting caught bragging about his indiscretions with some young thing in front of a open mike (even him being some family values republican). Until that some young thing is a lobbyist, we don't need another loophole where it is now OK to pay for the guys piece of ass, as long as that isn't her only job...
Then those who don't want one, get it forced on them just record a safe drive to work, then installs a lcd screen playing that back in front of the camera so they get a friendly view. Or figure out a way to just play it directly into the camera.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It's almost impossible to say absolutely , but it is likely just a shift (and likely a net carbon loss, currently.) If you compare Oil to Oil Car engines are in the 10-35% efficiency and power plants are in the 45-50% efficient range (reclaim the energy the car radiator throws away, run at peak efficiency 24/7.) But you lose 3-5% in transmission/transformers you must step through. then another 2-20% in charging the batteries (more like 25% for Pb, NiMH LiPo are at the lower end, but still the charger transformers them selves...)
The hybrid part does saves carbon emission, and the not having to run the engine means the in car engine would always be in the 35% of car efficiency. We haven't even touched on the batteries, which likely take at least 10% of the lifetime energy storage also used in the creation (mining of componets, plastics...)
Since less than 45% of our power comes from nuclear/other carbon neutral, this takes care of some base load, but any car charging will come on top of the base load (even at night) and will likely end up burning fuel.
I am calling it a wash, all the mined copper/aluminum carrying electric to your charger, and the extra engine wear on the mined steel as both infrastructures needed and on a similar scale.
How do you verify a police report? Should amazon then call to verify the report is really over a kindle?
Their are answers to those and more exist, they may even be simple enough for just a few cases. But amazon is a big retailer and obviously doesn't want to deal with the issues for little reward for them.
Having been a AT&T victim 10 years ago, where they got the wrong address for my cell phone account, and thus labeled my $125 purchase of phone as fraudulent, and couldn't ever get that label removed (and thus I have never dealt with AT&T since because of this.) I can understand a smart company just not wanting to get involved.
it is a fair question about our society. What good does it do to punish any law breakers. IE when you jail a murder does the victum return to life... (be it any un recoverable crime, murder/rape/molestation/arson/securities fraud) Sometimes it helps the victims feel better... However in this case with a device, and likely a opportunity thief, they may call amazon for help/support or decide once it is of no value for them they may return it. Or a reward may be much more affective (at a lower price.) Or even if it is a young person they may decide crime doesn't pay.
Seams like a fair reply to the situation. Google simply got the necessary rights to recoup their costs for scanning in works, that without the agreement would have been lost to all but a very very small handful of people. Google also cleared the way for anyone else to follow the same path. The complaints all seam to flow from 1 of 3 lines either a) These works might compete against our copyrighted works b) we hate google because they are successful c) why didn't we think of that.
So googles response along the lines of "we'll share at a reasonable cost", is all that is necessary. Any complaints along the lines of yours "but it should be free" should be muted by a low cost for something that would never have been made available to anyone without google.
I can instead choose to pay both them and a retailer surcharge for a DRM-protected copy of the book?
Isn't that how most retail sales work? (they are often the same price, just the OEM takes a smaller cut for the retailers service) I can buy the same book from oreilly.com or amazon.com heck soon you will have the choice, buy a kindle DRM'd version, or a non DRM'd version from either as well. The kindle is a great example, you can buy a DRM'd book from amazon and have it loaded onto your device automatically for $9.99, or go to oreilly, buy it without DRM for less, ($7.99) then transfer it to a memory card... I would hate to buy any DRM stuff from Amazon, but to not need a PC in the loop, it may be worth it at times (if you had the device and no PC handy for example.) Same as Itunes, and other music e-tailers. Buy the CD and rip, transfer. or buy the DRM'd crap straight into the thing? both actually have a audience.
(My view) Isolated recording are OK, and using those recordings to investigate a open case is also OK (subpoena/etc). As long as public recording aren't stored for long periods, or interlinked, then the benefit out weighs the harm, otherwise the potential harm is stronger than the benefits. The problem comes when you cover huge areas with linked together real time surveillance. Especially when that is then used behind closed doors (figuratively). Then they (those with access to the link) have the ability to harass, intimidate, and fabricate beyond any barriers. Ask any officer, they can generally follow any car/person for 15 minutes and find a legitimate law/reason to ticket/pull over that person. If your not allowed to use the same resources in your defense, because they are "off limits" Good luck explaining/expanding out the tape to show why you took the actions you took.
Basically those with the 100% coverage have 100% power, because anyone (whistle blowers) who ever exposes anything from outside that system can become a target with no defense. With 24/7 coverage you cannot escape harassment or defend yourself from it, because everyone, almost everyday breaks some law, if someone is looking close enough.
I don't have problems with isolated camera/audio recording, especially when you are documenting something you are also experiencing at the same time. Because their is 1) some difficulty in using that 2) Only way to equalize a "authority" in the system (ie it is difficult to overcome a lying person who builds trust, without something else) 3) it is limited in scope.
If we allow a coverage of the entire (public space) world in interlinked video recorded forever (storage capacity is coming), those with access will always be able to find you most compromising moment and be able to use that to shut you up/ manipulate you to their desire.
A little more research, and I think I finally have it. It is simply the difference between theory or concept, and practice. The best breeder reactor designs that have been built or tested (in combination with conventional designs) result in possibly 3* more total power but at higher costs (almost double the current nuclear electric cost, or 3* the coal cost.) Their are concepts that in theory could reach the 100-300* power mark for nuclear per volume, but at a even higher infrastructure cost (another 2*). So we are still stuck in a spot where nuclear is not feasible for more than 20-40% of our power without big risks and bigger dollars. And those risks are not worth taking until we do something to push the cost of conventional power to at least 3* (more like 8*) the cost they are now. But if we push coal/NG/etc any further then those costs would also sky rocket. So the free market has found close to the current optimal power solution, but it is too complicated for most to see that we have to have some nuclear power, but going all nuclear (or all conventional ) is still very impractical.
does ? GPLv2 permits to use software & library in proprietary programs
Oddly enough I do think GPLv2 provides more power to the original authors, assuming a dual licensed agreement, than any of the more open licenses. IE if someone produces a product that extends this, they have few options. 1) Publish their entire program and changes as GPL'd code themselves 2) feed these changes back to TomTom so that TomTom publishes the code for them 3) contact TomTom for a different license 4) don't publish.
So GPLv2 leaves TomTom with the most power, over their creation, of any open of the source licenses. This includes proprietary programs.
GPS doesn't handle re-routing according to overpass height clearances.
Are their printed maps that have this information? I know the information is generally available in a digital format, and many GPS's allow you to define routes on a PC then upload them. So I guess you could write them on maps, and read them on the fly. Or you could have it in your GPS that tells you to use exit ramp in "5 miles", "exit now". The important thing is, does the driver do this research, or someone else. And if it is someone else, which is more precise to transmit the information without error?
feeder-breeder reactors that are something close the 97-99 times
I am curious if you have some reference to exactly what the 97-99* "efficiency" means, since that can be twisted to mean anything, does it mean something different than 3* the energy from the same amount of uranium? which is the best I can understand from gleaming through the wikipedia articles,etc. They seam to say at the end result is that current breeder reactors end up being ~3% efficient at consuming all the uranium energy available, while conventional reactors are @ ~1% efficiency. With breeder reactors costing 5* the cost, even using only 1/3 the fuel (which is a impressive number) I am still not sure we have a nuclear only energy solution yet (at least not for more than 25 years, and then only at electric costs around $.20/kwhr not the $.06 we expect now?)
See above post about Uranium being so readily available they stopped prospecting in the peak of nuclear weapon
That's also completed made up B.S. with no meaningful reference.
Because the mine with the worlds largest known reserve of uranium, and over half of the known useable reserves of uranium, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam,_South_Australia/ and 1/4 of all uranuim production, was first discovered as a mine in 1975. And the size of reserve was not known (and was only sized up in the last 5 years.)
We shouldn't just make stuff up to make nuclear sound like the perfect and only needed solution. We should be somewhat realistic and realize nuclear is just part of any energy solution, And even realize this same solar pre-heating of water would also work great as a add-on to nuclear power, because nuclear is not a limitless energy supply like you are claiming.
To make your claims true, breeder reactors would have to be 250* more efficient than current reactors, not the 3* that they can be.
Your post I responded to is about "stockpiles" you claimed we have enough "stockpiles" for millennium, and without breeder reactors. That is off by several orders of magnitude because it 1) it can't (currently) be reconfigured without breeder reactors, and 2) even with breeder reactors their is still not enough stockpiles, even if some magical process comes out that we get 100* the use out of all the re-spent/stockpiled stuff, their is just not a millennium of energy their. We have not been using nuclear long enough that at 3* (or even 100*) the efficiency to cover 5* the amount of energy we have ever produced from nuclear, over 50* the time frame from stockpiles, which is exactly what your post seams to claim, without any reference/reasoning to back it up. Other than some magical nuclear tech? are you holding out on us?