More than enough to power us through the next few millenium, more is we use breeder reactors.
I think your numbers are a bit off. we currently use around 60,000 tons of uranium (depleted) per year to create 20% of our power, the stockpiles in the US are estimated at around 500,000 tons of DU. Thats 8 years (at the current rate, or 1.6years for all power), not millennium. Breeder reactors are expected to be 3* better at processing Uranium than conventional plants, so even then you get 24 years on uranium (the use of thorium, and other materials is the big bonus from breeders) In theory we currently get to use 1% of the potential in uranium for power, so even if breeders were 100% efficient at using all nuclear content from the uranium (not the current max of 3%) your still at just 160 years at the current rate of power from all the US uranium stock piles. millennium only comes from using all the uranium and thorium in the world, in breeder reactors (of which only one small reactor is currently being tried for use in power.) because the price of uranium has to increase 5* to justify the cost (IE electric costs would likely need to triple to even justify starting to build breeder reactors)
There is a big difference between protection for opensource developers and products that happen to be opensource. So I am not sure most of your post made any clear dispute with the GP, since I think their point was it is safer to release the source, than to release the application.
What we learned from deCSS, and other projects, is that you may be safe releasing source code of a project that violates patents/DMCA. Even when you can't release the binarys and expect the same protection. Although it is not clear (to me) if those patent protection promises extend to applications themselves, let alone to what point these patents would be shared in issues like TIVO where everything isn't opensourced. (IE could they release the source under LGPL for only patent risky stuff, and not the rest of the code, then expect IBM's patents to come to their defense?)
correct, and the understanding is Amazon provides a service (ebooks, and CDMA/3G access) for the device under that agreement. So the instant someone violated that agreement with amazon, amazon is no longer under obligation to provide the other services. In essence the moment the device is hacked, they can turn off the pipe with no fear of a class action lawsuit.
you're going to have to take a node offline ever 2-3 days for the first year and then almost 2 a day after that!
They would have one node become degraded by one drive every 2-3 days. 45 drives per chassis, if you had 4 pure spares in the 45 then the 1.2 drive failures per node/year would give 3* the life per node before maintenance desired. I think using your numbers they would then start averaging 2.1 node failures (lack of a hot spare) per year (with 4 hot spares to start with). So actual drive failure node maintenance shouldn't be that horrible. Granted that means they would have a extra node to make the same storage, to make up for the hot spares...
Yes subpoena, those are so last decade. Now even a few hundred rubber stamp judges are just too slow. to catch terrorists. (although probably in-admissible in court, they can still lock any American up for life without ever telling a judge, if they are a "terrorism suspect")
Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.
one of i4i's main products is supplying this xml authoring functionality for Microsoft word. So every copy of word already providing the functionality is actually a lost potential sell for the patent holder.
I may disagree with some of your earlier posts, not much I would argue with in that one. Well except slightly;) un-motivated not so good teachers are not unique to public schools. Same with motivated teachers not being unique to private. I also went to public schools, and also got a crappy math teacher that didn't move me on because I was so board, and right after lunch so I mostly slept (but was near the top of the class in exam scores.) Later I did get a awesome math teacher at the same school who kept me interested, despite the ease, and got me back on track. I never got into calculus class in HS because of one 9th grade teacher, but made up for it with summer school before college... Since some of the smartest people I know have the least formal education, and some of the most worthless people I have worked with went to schools with the best reputations, this shows me that school reputation is not the only factor (likely not even the primary one.) Because even bad schools are overcome by outside motivations, and good schools are worthless without other positive influences and motivations, but no schooling cannot be overcome anymore. As such I would prefer we concentrate on keeping public schools improving, and completely keeping government (including the money) out of the private ones, unless they cause problems.
Why should someone who wants to send their kid to a private school pay double?
Why should I (who has no kids, and very likely never will) pay twice as much in taxes, so that people who are willing, able, and already paying for their own kids private education (that is already working without my money) get more money? I do think you pretty much covered some of the reason for private school success at the cost of public schools. IMHO Most private schools work so good because they don't have to, and generally wont take the lower/less motivated or troubled students. This is not a option for public schools. Following you plan will effectively give the Japanese style education, where only the rich, and those who test well at a young age, get a chance at the best education. The rest are pushed into more of a vocational training. If that is the goal then I agree vouchers will work towards that goal. This doesn't affect my argument that many will choose the really non scientific religious schools then funded by all tax payers, regardless the value of the education given.
Don't you think that they would like their money to be spent on the school that they see best?
nope, proper education is in the best interest of society. If they are rich enough to pay for private schooling and taxes, then the odds are great that kid won't fall out of the economic system. If your not, then we need to encourage those kids to get a education that meets society's standards, not some "the bible says this" education. I do think vouchers between public schools is a good idea. But church's already prevent more tax money from getting to state/schools coffers, they don't need more money taken from those same depleted coffers to give a religious education. Sure if they take away all tax breaks for religion, then maybe a voucher system, but not both. I do think many church affiliated schools are the best, because they have a real money incentive to produce, throw government money into that and it will all break.
for parents to have the option of a voucher for the per-student cost. That works out well for everyone, so you'll never see it in action.
Doesn't work for me, I want nothing to do with tax dollars being used to teach completely made up crap as useful, or out right scamming, just because they were able to brainwash enough people. I have seen what happened to some native Americans, they get some corrupt leaders who seam to want to keep a large group of stupid people in poverty, and under educated so they can't become part of productive society, then con the federal government in continuing to give them money to correct the injustice and "educate them".
Exactly the "in plain sight" is not the constitution, it was a ruling relating to a search for items that were likely to be intentionally hidden, not ones intentionally indexed cross referenced and precisely defined. IE the case of finding kiddie porn while searching for production of false identification cards, on a PC makes some sense as a "in plain site" find, since they needed to be "look around" for things that were likely to be hidden among other images. Finding Alex Rodriguez results while searching for David Ortiz results, in a database of drug results, digging not needed.
Troll is not the correct term, true. But I do think it shows how the tech patents are entirely too long lived. While TIVO may have been years ahead of their time when they came out, no one could honestly believe without TIVOS's contribution that we wouldn't have naturally reached a DVR without them years ago. Doesn't seam to me that technology companies should be guaranteed some 20 year lifetime, for one idea (no matter how good) that's slightly ahead of their time. Maybe a sliding scale where licenses are capped to some.5% of other sales.
FYI, according to the wired article, this wasn't about a database, it was about a excel file. I think since "in plain sight" is not in the constitution; it is a interpretation of the Constitution that clearly shouldn't apply to computer data (and thats the only justification I can think of for this ruling.) If we assume we have one row for each name, and we have 10 names to look for, sorted by last name, if those 10 names are each on different pages, we then have 10 pages * 30 results per screen, so ~300 results were clearly in plain sight, during this search. I do applaud the decision, since in this case they did seam to have a willing 3rd party (not the prosecution or defense), willing to supply exactly the data they needed, they should have allowed this 3rd party holding the data to strip out all other results. But clearly in this case, anyone going through the original data was going to see "in plain sight" many more results than the 10 requested. So the ruling made it clear to me: since the cops could have received only the results they wanted, they should have only obtained those results.
I couldn't find comparisons online, but from what I recall copper is less susceptible than steel to alkali corrosion, yet they put unprotected steel re-bar in concrete to reinforce it. It appears the alkali corrosion to steel in concrete is minimal, from the concrete it's self. only if you have a external (salt/etc) input do they need to do something to the steel. I suspect the greater hardness, and much lower cost of steel more than makes up for the lower corrosion that would occur if using copper instead.
I agree under 2 conditions. A) the thief is more of a professional thief, not some high schooler who saw you leave your device and thought it looks pricey. B) the method is widespread enough for the thieves to hear about work arounds. I am guessing that at most 5 thieves in the world have been exposed to getting caught by such measures, so why bother learning a work around, when so few gadgets currently have any counter measure. C) your not likely catching the pro thief anyway, they care nothing for using the gadget, only how much can they get for it. The plan would likely be catching the buyer, and working backwards if possible.
the cut off part sounds made up (actually more of a exaggeration at least about finding fingers.) The razor blades on the wires making a mess makes sense. Thiefs like dark and being quick, don't mind causing damage. So I would see them breaking out the dash to get the radio moving, reaching deep in the dark hole, to not damage the radio, then blindly ripping and cutting at the vehicle harness for speed, and to get the maximum re-usable wires for later use. anyone messing with cars wouldn't be too surprised by the first nick, and keep going...
the theory is that issuing speeding tickets causes a fear a reminder for speeders, thus cause people to drive at a safer speed (and cameras are a reminder.) So in a theoretical situation where speed limits are set correctly for all situations then enforcement would cause all to be safer, thus it would be a service to anyone in the area. In practice you are generally correct. I see that the cameras cause too many "oh shit was I going to fast, hit brakes" and cause major havoc, especially for the cars not speeding.
unless everyone can see the timer of the previous car, their is little advantage to tie the car to the spot. How would you know how much free time you could get away with? I guess if you wanted to avoid ticketing a car that payed for the wrong spot. The ones I have used like this gives you a receipt with a printed time you keep. I have never seen enforcement to know if they have a wireless PC app... This did make extending time pricey, then again I have only used beach parking that had something like a 4 hour limit for $5.
Apple won't lose a thing by offering it-- in fact,
That would be true, if the Iphone was available in equal/cheaper plans than the other phones, or if apple didn't get a cut of the monthly fees. GV works (I assume) equally on any compatible phone, so if a user is using GV on the Iphone they can truly switch providers and phones without losing/transferring contacts, voice mail, etc. So if a Iphone user ever decides google voice is nicer than the Iphone equivalent apps, they have no incentive to stick to the iphone/ATT (or upgrade to another iphone) also they won't be pushing employers, etc to allow them access to ATT/iphone plans. So sure, if the iphone is competitive, then apple doesn't need lock in. Otherwise Apple is justified in being worried about a app designed to prevent vender lockin.
however, often rule breakers speed traffic flow. We can also see that in nature with ants, bees, etc. You almost always want a certain percentage who are not just following the heard and are breaking out windows, jumping over desks, looking for other routes... I would actually argue those people who think it is their job to enforce the "rules" cause more problems. IE the guy who passes everyone on the right and jumps into traffic causes a momentary issue. Those of us that tailgate, and drive erratically trying to stop them from gaining by the rude actions, cause it to become a much bigger issue than it should be.
According to the article their is a issues with their arguments of concern with correct data. MTA doesn't care where he gets the data from, or how it is entered, they only want paid for the app existing. (according to the linked article) If he pays for the license, they might provide him data on a CD, but only when he requests the CD and will make no guarantees to actually provide any data to those paying the license fee (IE they might provide him data on a CD, or maybe not.) It is a valid argument that at some point this app existing might someday cause them harm, since if they succeed in getting apple to pull the app then they will likely have some pissed off customers. Doesn't seam to be the main concern of MTA does it?
burning that fuel in a car in a normal way to drive around is carbon neutral,
only if no fossil fuels are used in the process of building the power plants, mining the raw materials or transporting the energy to its destination. So that rules out all your suggestions (and all other sources, except methane harvesting of bio-waste) maybe unicorn giggles (guessing the farts have more energy density anyway???) Well at least until we can make electric drive mining trucks out of bamboo, and return to making tires out of natural rubber (I wonder what the electrical resistance/efficiency is of bamboo soaked in salt water?) (/sarcasm) Yes I do know the term "carbon neutral" is now in common use to just have a meaning of, some small part of the cycle is in fact carbon neutral.
not sure why you think it would bother i4i, the patent holder, that a third party would then be allowed to write a Solution to XML Authoring in Microsoft® Word? Some reason they don't like Microsoft building that tool into word without sharing some of the profits.
Are the new drones gonna be used in the much-publicised 'War' On Drugs or something?
They have been using drones for at least 6 years for this already on US soil (AZ, TX, NM), one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbit_Hermes_450 is big enough to cause troubles already, but smaller ones seam more common.
Granted these are all backed up by human pilots ready to take over. And are small enough/slow enough/in low population density areas, that it is unlikely to cause deaths, assuming they don't interact with something bigger first. Also I assume no large airport interactions are required.
Slashdot Mirror
More than enough to power us through the next few millenium, more is we use breeder reactors.
I think your numbers are a bit off. we currently use around 60,000 tons of uranium (depleted) per year to create 20% of our power, the stockpiles in the US are estimated at around 500,000 tons of DU. Thats 8 years (at the current rate, or 1.6years for all power), not millennium. Breeder reactors are expected to be 3* better at processing Uranium than conventional plants, so even then you get 24 years on uranium (the use of thorium, and other materials is the big bonus from breeders) In theory we currently get to use 1% of the potential in uranium for power, so even if breeders were 100% efficient at using all nuclear content from the uranium (not the current max of 3%) your still at just 160 years at the current rate of power from all the US uranium stock piles.
millennium only comes from using all the uranium and thorium in the world, in breeder reactors (of which only one small reactor is currently being tried for use in power.) because the price of uranium has to increase 5* to justify the cost (IE electric costs would likely need to triple to even justify starting to build breeder reactors)
There is a big difference between protection for opensource developers and products that happen to be opensource. So I am not sure most of your post made any clear dispute with the GP, since I think their point was it is safer to release the source, than to release the application.
What we learned from deCSS, and other projects, is that you may be safe releasing source code of a project that violates patents/DMCA. Even when you can't release the binarys and expect the same protection. Although it is not clear (to me) if those patent protection promises extend to applications themselves, let alone to what point these patents would be shared in issues like TIVO where everything isn't opensourced. (IE could they release the source under LGPL for only patent risky stuff, and not the rest of the code, then expect IBM's patents to come to their defense?)
The debt was paid and you own the device.
correct, and the understanding is Amazon provides a service (ebooks, and CDMA/3G access) for the device under that agreement. So the instant someone violated that agreement with amazon, amazon is no longer under obligation to provide the other services. In essence the moment the device is hacked, they can turn off the pipe with no fear of a class action lawsuit.
you're going to have to take a node offline ever 2-3 days for the first year and then almost 2 a day after that!
They would have one node become degraded by one drive every 2-3 days. 45 drives per chassis, if you had 4 pure spares in the 45 then the 1.2 drive failures per node/year would give 3* the life per node before maintenance desired. I think using your numbers they would then start averaging 2.1 node failures (lack of a hot spare) per year (with 4 hot spares to start with). So actual drive failure node maintenance shouldn't be that horrible. Granted that means they would have a extra node to make the same storage, to make up for the hot spares...
Yes subpoena, those are so last decade. Now even a few hundred rubber stamp judges are just too slow. to catch terrorists. (although probably in-admissible in court, they can still lock any American up for life without ever telling a judge, if they are a "terrorism suspect")
Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.
one of i4i's main products is supplying this xml authoring functionality for Microsoft word. So every copy of word already providing the functionality is actually a lost potential sell for the patent holder.
I may disagree with some of your earlier posts, not much I would argue with in that one. Well except slightly ;)
un-motivated not so good teachers are not unique to public schools. Same with motivated teachers not being unique to private. I also went to public schools, and also got a crappy math teacher that didn't move me on because I was so board, and right after lunch so I mostly slept (but was near the top of the class in exam scores.) Later I did get a awesome math teacher at the same school who kept me interested, despite the ease, and got me back on track. I never got into calculus class in HS because of one 9th grade teacher, but made up for it with summer school before college...
Since some of the smartest people I know have the least formal education, and some of the most worthless people I have worked with went to schools with the best reputations, this shows me that school reputation is not the only factor (likely not even the primary one.) Because even bad schools are overcome by outside motivations, and good schools are worthless without other positive influences and motivations, but no schooling cannot be overcome anymore. As such I would prefer we concentrate on keeping public schools improving, and completely keeping government (including the money) out of the private ones, unless they cause problems.
Why should someone who wants to send their kid to a private school pay double?
Why should I (who has no kids, and very likely never will) pay twice as much in taxes, so that people who are willing, able, and already paying for their own kids private education (that is already working without my money) get more money?
I do think you pretty much covered some of the reason for private school success at the cost of public schools. IMHO Most private schools work so good because they don't have to, and generally wont take the lower/less motivated or troubled students. This is not a option for public schools. Following you plan will effectively give the Japanese style education, where only the rich, and those who test well at a young age, get a chance at the best education. The rest are pushed into more of a vocational training. If that is the goal then I agree vouchers will work towards that goal. This doesn't affect my argument that many will choose the really non scientific religious schools then funded by all tax payers, regardless the value of the education given.
Don't you think that they would like their money to be spent on the school that they see best?
nope, proper education is in the best interest of society. If they are rich enough to pay for private schooling and taxes, then the odds are great that kid won't fall out of the economic system. If your not, then we need to encourage those kids to get a education that meets society's standards, not some "the bible says this" education. I do think vouchers between public schools is a good idea. But church's already prevent more tax money from getting to state/schools coffers, they don't need more money taken from those same depleted coffers to give a religious education. Sure if they take away all tax breaks for religion, then maybe a voucher system, but not both. I do think many church affiliated schools are the best, because they have a real money incentive to produce, throw government money into that and it will all break.
for parents to have the option of a voucher for the per-student cost. That works out well for everyone, so you'll never see it in action.
Doesn't work for me, I want nothing to do with tax dollars being used to teach completely made up crap as useful, or out right scamming, just because they were able to brainwash enough people. I have seen what happened to some native Americans, they get some corrupt leaders who seam to want to keep a large group of stupid people in poverty, and under educated so they can't become part of productive society, then con the federal government in continuing to give them money to correct the injustice and "educate them".
Exactly the "in plain sight" is not the constitution, it was a ruling relating to a search for items that were likely to be intentionally hidden, not ones intentionally indexed cross referenced and precisely defined. IE the case of finding kiddie porn while searching for production of false identification cards, on a PC makes some sense as a "in plain site" find, since they needed to be "look around" for things that were likely to be hidden among other images. Finding Alex Rodriguez results while searching for David Ortiz results, in a database of drug results, digging not needed.
Troll is not the correct term, true. But I do think it shows how the tech patents are entirely too long lived. While TIVO may have been years ahead of their time when they came out, no one could honestly believe without TIVOS's contribution that we wouldn't have naturally reached a DVR without them years ago. Doesn't seam to me that technology companies should be guaranteed some 20 year lifetime, for one idea (no matter how good) that's slightly ahead of their time. Maybe a sliding scale where licenses are capped to some .5% of other sales.
FYI, according to the wired article, this wasn't about a database, it was about a excel file. I think since "in plain sight" is not in the constitution; it is a interpretation of the Constitution that clearly shouldn't apply to computer data (and thats the only justification I can think of for this ruling.) If we assume we have one row for each name, and we have 10 names to look for, sorted by last name, if those 10 names are each on different pages, we then have 10 pages * 30 results per screen, so ~300 results were clearly in plain sight, during this search.
I do applaud the decision, since in this case they did seam to have a willing 3rd party (not the prosecution or defense), willing to supply exactly the data they needed, they should have allowed this 3rd party holding the data to strip out all other results. But clearly in this case, anyone going through the original data was going to see "in plain sight" many more results than the 10 requested. So the ruling made it clear to me: since the cops could have received only the results they wanted, they should have only obtained those results.
It is completely acceptable to bury/embed both hard drawn and annealed copper water tube in concrete. Decades of satisfactory service experience with the use of copper tube for in-floor radiant heating systems, water distribution systems and snow melting systems attest to the compatibility of copper tube embedded, encased or in contact with concrete
doesn't concrete corrode copper
I couldn't find comparisons online, but from what I recall copper is less susceptible than steel to alkali corrosion, yet they put unprotected steel re-bar in concrete to reinforce it. It appears the alkali corrosion to steel in concrete is minimal, from the concrete it's self. only if you have a external (salt/etc) input do they need to do something to the steel.
I suspect the greater hardness, and much lower cost of steel more than makes up for the lower corrosion that would occur if using copper instead.
I agree under 2 conditions. A) the thief is more of a professional thief, not some high schooler who saw you leave your device and thought it looks pricey. B) the method is widespread enough for the thieves to hear about work arounds. I am guessing that at most 5 thieves in the world have been exposed to getting caught by such measures, so why bother learning a work around, when so few gadgets currently have any counter measure. C) your not likely catching the pro thief anyway, they care nothing for using the gadget, only how much can they get for it. The plan would likely be catching the buyer, and working backwards if possible.
the cut off part sounds made up (actually more of a exaggeration at least about finding fingers.) The razor blades on the wires making a mess makes sense. Thiefs like dark and being quick, don't mind causing damage. So I would see them breaking out the dash to get the radio moving, reaching deep in the dark hole, to not damage the radio, then blindly ripping and cutting at the vehicle harness for speed, and to get the maximum re-usable wires for later use. anyone messing with cars wouldn't be too surprised by the first nick, and keep going...
Issuing speeding tickets is not a "service".
the theory is that issuing speeding tickets causes a fear a reminder for speeders, thus cause people to drive at a safer speed (and cameras are a reminder.) So in a theoretical situation where speed limits are set correctly for all situations then enforcement would cause all to be safer, thus it would be a service to anyone in the area. In practice you are generally correct. I see that the cameras cause too many "oh shit was I going to fast, hit brakes" and cause major havoc, especially for the cars not speeding.
unless everyone can see the timer of the previous car, their is little advantage to tie the car to the spot. How would you know how much free time you could get away with? I guess if you wanted to avoid ticketing a car that payed for the wrong spot. The ones I have used like this gives you a receipt with a printed time you keep. I have never seen enforcement to know if they have a wireless PC app... This did make extending time pricey, then again I have only used beach parking that had something like a 4 hour limit for $5.
Apple won't lose a thing by offering it-- in fact,
That would be true, if the Iphone was available in equal/cheaper plans than the other phones, or if apple didn't get a cut of the monthly fees. GV works (I assume) equally on any compatible phone, so if a user is using GV on the Iphone they can truly switch providers and phones without losing/transferring contacts, voice mail, etc. So if a Iphone user ever decides google voice is nicer than the Iphone equivalent apps, they have no incentive to stick to the iphone/ATT (or upgrade to another iphone) also they won't be pushing employers, etc to allow them access to ATT/iphone plans.
So sure, if the iphone is competitive, then apple doesn't need lock in. Otherwise Apple is justified in being worried about a app designed to prevent vender lockin.
however, often rule breakers speed traffic flow. We can also see that in nature with ants, bees, etc. You almost always want a certain percentage who are not just following the heard and are breaking out windows, jumping over desks, looking for other routes... I would actually argue those people who think it is their job to enforce the "rules" cause more problems. IE the guy who passes everyone on the right and jumps into traffic causes a momentary issue. Those of us that tailgate, and drive erratically trying to stop them from gaining by the rude actions, cause it to become a much bigger issue than it should be.
According to the article their is a issues with their arguments of concern with correct data. MTA doesn't care where he gets the data from, or how it is entered, they only want paid for the app existing. (according to the linked article) If he pays for the license, they might provide him data on a CD, but only when he requests the CD and will make no guarantees to actually provide any data to those paying the license fee (IE they might provide him data on a CD, or maybe not.) It is a valid argument that at some point this app existing might someday cause them harm, since if they succeed in getting apple to pull the app then they will likely have some pissed off customers. Doesn't seam to be the main concern of MTA does it?
burning that fuel in a car in a normal way to drive around is carbon neutral,
only if no fossil fuels are used in the process of building the power plants, mining the raw materials or transporting the energy to its destination. So that rules out all your suggestions (and all other sources, except methane harvesting of bio-waste) maybe unicorn giggles (guessing the farts have more energy density anyway???) Well at least until we can make electric drive mining trucks out of bamboo, and return to making tires out of natural rubber (I wonder what the electrical resistance/efficiency is of bamboo soaked in salt water?)
(/sarcasm) Yes I do know the term "carbon neutral" is now in common use to just have a meaning of, some small part of the cycle is in fact carbon neutral.
not sure why you think it would bother i4i, the patent holder, that a third party would then be allowed to write a Solution to XML Authoring in Microsoft® Word? Some reason they don't like Microsoft building that tool into word without sharing some of the profits.
Are the new drones gonna be used in the much-publicised 'War' On Drugs or something?
They have been using drones for at least 6 years for this already on US soil (AZ, TX, NM), one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbit_Hermes_450 is big enough to cause troubles already, but smaller ones seam more common.
Granted these are all backed up by human pilots ready to take over. And are small enough/slow enough/in low population density areas, that it is unlikely to cause deaths, assuming they don't interact with something bigger first.
Also I assume no large airport interactions are required.