...Or you could just install a Faraday cage (or metallic paint) inside prisoner cells. I would think a 5 sided coating (plus coating on the bars) would eliminate most of the signal, depending on the direction of the cell tower. I don't know much about the effects of metallic paint on cell signal, but I would guess signal reflection would do more damage than absorption (if it works anything like 802.11 networks). In which case, 5 way reflection should be sufficient.
I agree with this... except for the fact that this story came about when Keanu said he was on board for it. He's DEAD in the third film. I guess he can be digital only, but even the digital version of him blew up with all the other Smiths. I guess the 01 city backup tapes are pretty thorough...
You may be on to the root cause here. Disney has successfully marketed 50 year old movies for consistent new sales through this "vault" tactic. It makes sense, particularly if, quite frankly, your best intellectual property was created before we put a man on the moon.
This new DECE system would put a stop to that. At first I thought Disney may be trying to put themselves on the ethical side of the argument. Now I'm thinking they're just trying to protect their best interest. Either way, if their holding out on this, it's OK in my book, whatever their motivation.
Fail. There have been numerous interviews with Hawking and other scientists, mathematicians, physicists, etc. that reference "god" as an unknown quantity in the face of stupendous data. Not to be confused with a deity. Einstein also wrote about "god" in this same reference, and he was a very well known atheist.
I wish I was a better student, and could make it through law school. I think I would love to practice the kind of law that you do. As it stands, I'm just an IT guy, and IT certifications are about as much structured schooling as I can make it through at one time. Ah, to stand up for the little guy. I salute you, sir.
I agree with this. If it weren't for my DVR, I would never have even known the new season of Sarah Connor had started. That has less to do with my viewing habits, and more to do with a crappy job of promoting the show.
Fox is generally on my shit list for this. I might have been the only person to arrange my schedule around so I could watch Drive (Nathon Fillion. Come ON!). They went on a break, and never came back. I gave serious thought to catching a plane so I could put a brick through the window of Fox corporate office. Sarah Connor Chronicles is one of the few shows on network TV that I watch. Dollhouse is on the list because it's Joss Whedon, and it's something the girlfriend and I can sit and watch together. Outside of that, though, it's all cable stuff, mostly Discovery channel stuff (Dirty Jobs FTW. Mike Rowe is my own personal Jesus (pronouncing that with a silent J makes it funnier given the subject matter)).
My point is, Fox has a hold on my household watching habits, and if it continues to take otherwise good shows and cancel them (or screw them over to the point where they get cancelled), then I'm sure I'm not the only person who will stop allowing themselves to be jerked around, and move exclusively over to cable, where the show schedulers tend not to be complete idiots.
I googled some of these suggestions, and came out with another choice. When searching reviews for Avast and Antivir, it seems that a product called BitDefender tops the ratings whenever it is compared to these others. I didn't see anything negative on Google about it. Anyone tried it?
As you seem to be fairly experienced in such matters, what would you suggest as an alternative client for Windows systems? My old IT job used to run McAfee as part of their standard image, and I hated dealing with it. Norton always seemed like the lesser of those two evils, but in the last few years, their interface has gotten ridiculously huge, and now is filed in my mind as bloatware.
On my home machine, I just built a dual quad-core Xeon (I do a lot of recording/post production on the side from the day job), so while resources are not much of a concern (still seeing a bit of a bottleneck under heavy loads from my SATA HDs, should have sprung for the SSD.:) ), I'd still like to find a streamlined client that will do AV/spyware, with the automatic updates I've grown accustomed to in Norton/McAfee products. Suggestions?
I was reading about TorrentPrivacy last week, and it sounded nice, except the site gave me a heavy "fishy" vibe, and they charge a fee for their service.
I'm reading up on OneSwarm, but I don't know enough about the technology to know if this works the same way, or better than TP. Any thoughts?
Unless this place has a sniper with a tranq rifle sitting above the screen to take down self-absorbed jackasses talking during the movie, I don't think it will help. There's a nifty arts cinema that recently started playing about half mainstream stuff here in town. It's on the other side of town from me, but I'll go for the smaller theater size, better concession options (white chocolate popcorn FTW) and the ability to bring in drinks from the attached bar. However, that said, I still have a consistant track record of people kicking my seat, talking during the movie, or texting someone every 5 minutes, and holding the phone screen-out so I know when they have a text message before they do.
I just spent my tax rebate on about $2K worth of computer equipment, otherwise I'd be investing in home theater stuff. Which is more than likely what I'll be doing with my rebate next year. I have a nice shotgun room in my basement (about 10 feet by 30 feet) that will make for a perfect home theater. All I have to do is waterproof the basement (or water-resist, as I have been learning), throw up some drywall and carpet, and the rest is just the equipment I need to simulate a trip to the cinema. A nice projector and sound system, and my file server with all of the movies I might or might not have sits right on the other side of the wall. I think more people will be doing this in the future, as the combination of better/cheaper components mixes with the further proliferation of electronic compies of movies.
I couldn't agree more. The last 3 movies I've seen in a theater were without exception ruined by either other movie-goers, or another factor like idiotic theater staff or sticky floors. I LOVE movies, but I'm almost to the point of swearing off going to the cinema.
I might or might not pirate movies from time to time, but if I did, the vast majority of them would be movies I've seen before, usually in the theater. While I wouldn't be paying for these hypothetical movies, it is a matter of convenient acquisition of movies, so that I can access them anytime I want and watch them at my convenience.
I DO pay for a Netflix subscription. Which, when combined with my XBox, allows me to access a lot of movies at almost the same convenience factor of the ones sitting on my hard drive. This is an example of turning someone who might or might not have pilfered the occasional torrented movie into someone paying a fair price for a fair shake. Netflix does include a measure of DRM, essentially making it impossible (that I am aware of) to copy the streamed moves to disc- or if you can, it would equate to copying a song off the radio-post stream and all that. However, Netflix applies this DRM without making me feel like a criminal for trying to access my content in a normal manner.
This is the ONLY example of a major media outlet actually taking advantage of new technologies to expand their offerings. But I think that has a large part to do with the fact that Netflix IS the new technology. I'm sure Blockbuster would love to claim the part of the victim of new technology of they had a foot to stand on. From what I hear, they are circling the drain these days as a direct result of Netflix' market share.
As I understand it, TPB has long held that the website does not contain any copyrighted material, and that they don't distribute any copyrighted material. I guess what I'm getting is that the prosecution is trying to prove that pointing out the location of copyrighted material is a crime.
Given that corporate greed is a constant, (as evidenced by the US banks, who hoarde bailout money and spend it on sports stadium naming rights in the face of imminent economic collapse) I see this snowballing to the point where companies that manufacture software, like BitTorrent and Azureus will soon come under fire. They tried this with the gun industry, and have had mixed results for years. I think it's rediculous that you should be held accountable for someone potentially doing something illegal with the software you designed in good faith, and under the allowance of current law. It's an erosion of rights thorugh corporate lobbying that leads to this sort of behavior. As others have stated, artists won't see any extra income if bittorrent traffic in its entirety (not at stake in this trial, I know) comes to a halt. In fact,there is a good chance, I think, that the media companies pushing this witch hunt will find that even if they were somehow successful in completely ceasing all P2P trading of their content, they would not see any increase in revenue. To the contrary, the large population of people that hear about an artist via the medium will no longer have access to this method, and the proliferation of new music will slow down considerably, fueled only by expensive promoting methods. If the media companies want their 1970's revenues back, so be it. But I think they're also looking at 1970's revenue minus the adjustment for inflation.
Agreed. I bought some memory there a while back, through their in-store pickup option. I paid for it online, drove to the store, and had to wait 30 MINUTES for them to figure out how to process my order. Without exception, every time I went in to a Circuit City, I left disgusted and vowing to avoid shopping there again.
Incidentally, now that CC is closed, that mantle is being passed on to Fry's. The reps never know anything, assuming you can actually get one to help you, and they never have to part I'm looking for. It's either not stocked anymore, or they're always sold out of it. Sure it's fun to go in there and drool at the TVs, but I'm sticking to Newegg from now on.
What you're not getting, is that they're concerned with finding a food source that can be replicated while en route to Mars. Say the Mars crew was 5 people strong. 3 years is 1095 days. For 5 people to eat 3 square meals a day, that's 5475 servings of food. Scratch that, not servings, but complete meals, which generally represent at least a couple servings of various food groups. The concern is that A.)You're packing a ton of extra weight that has to break Earth's gravity, and then adding in additional fuel to compensate, which then makes the craft even heavier. B.) That much food, even in compact forms like tuna cans and beef jerky, is still going to take a massive area just for storage. Again, extra weight added to craft for additional spacecraft real estate. C.)Survivability. Most of the foods you listed will not keep at room temperature for 3 years. Tuna, perhaps, but jerky, bagels, etc. Won't make it even close to that. You can freeze it, but this will also require extra gear, energy and materials to accomplish.
Now, if you were to introduce a renewable food source like the silk worm, most of those problems are reduced considerably. You leave orbit with only a seed population, and since their bodies, much like ours, are comprised mostly of water, it is not a straight equation of 1LB of worm food begets 1LB of worms. They eat leaves, which could theoretically also be grown using a minimum of resources, which only require light (free), water (recyclable) and soil (recyclable). Therefore you are netting a gain in food that is more than what you leave with from Earth.
I'm sure they will probably pack some regular food too, but likely more as an appeasement to keep the astronauts sane. It will be spaced out sparingly over a long ride, and is essentially a luxury. I view it a lot like the food situation in Firefly, where most of their diet is comprised from nondescript protein bars. If you didn't see the behind the scenes of them making those protein bars, I think you'd be looking at a very similar set of circumstances. Once the worms have been harvested, they can be processed any number of ways, including being refined and compacted into their most efficient form (bars). Then you add in a box of strawberries every now and then just to keep from going all bibbledy.
Actually, I had to look that up recently. It's not 3GB, it's 4GB. Here comes the science:
"Microsoft Windows XP Professional, designed as a 32-bit OS, supports an address range of up to 4 GB for virtual memory addresses and up to 4 GB for physical memory addresses. Because the physical memory addresses are sub-divided to manage both the computer's PCI memory address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM, the amount of available RAM is always less than 4 GB.
The PCI memory addresses starting down from 4 GB are used for things like the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges, PCI-Express, and video/graphics cards. The BIOS takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address. Then each of the other items mentioned are allocated address ranges below the BIOS range. The largest block of addresses is allocated for today's high performance graphics cards which need addresses for at least the amount of memory on the graphics card. The net result is that a high performance x86-based computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory) addresses are allocated.
RAM starts from address 0. The BIOS allocates RAM from 0 up to the bottom of the PCI memory addresses mentioned above, typically limiting available RAM to between 3 GB and 3.4 GB."
I actually learned something last week, thought I'd pass it on... *Cue the "The More You Know" logo*
Um, I'm sorry but isn't Xeon still an Intel brand? There are quite a few offerings in the Xeon line that are quad core. In fact, I'm building a Socket 771 machine now with dual Xeon procs, and was interested to see how the Xeon quad 2.5GHz was going to stack up, (what I can afford) but no. Fail.
I agree with you there. Here in the midwest, where the solar output is only so-so, for my household power consumption, I'm looking at $40,000 to convert to solar. I'd do it if it were cheaper, but since I already get wind-generated power from my local electric company (I pay a small premium for this, which I'm fine with), there's no reason to absorb the cost, as it would take approximately 44 years to recover the cost from such an upgrade (assuming I break even on power consumption vs. generation). Sure, the green power I use could then be redirected to other areas, created a larger abundance, but unless there is a sizeable government intervention, there's just no way I can justify that kind of personal contribution toward the collective good.
Warner is proceeding under the assumption that if they apply their big guns to this, they will get it pushed through. Especially for those colleges that would rather roll over and pass the bill to the students than fight for their rights. If I were a big music exec, I'd be doing the same thing. It's free money, even if only a handful of schools agree.
What burns me about it is that it's obviously a money grab, and it's so blatantly immoral it kills me that it's reached this level of attention. First off, why Warner? Why do they get the money? Second off, I'm a musician on the side, and I put out albums on a regular basis which make money here on a local level. If my band's album is downloaded on a college campus, is some of that tax going to go to me, if I have no affiliation with Warner? NO! So not only are they getting money for music that may or may not even be downloaded, they're getting money for content that isn't even theirs to profit on.
It's my opinion that the music industry has an standing policy of "do everything you think you can get away with", which, when combined with the more venerated "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" puts them in the frame of mind to do this. And if they get away with it, even a little bit, they're making money. For those lamenting that these guys are clinging to a dying business model, wake up and look around. This is the new business model! Use your clout and presence to try and get as much free money as you can, while doing damage control on the other side to stem any repercussions from less than moral practices. If you had millions of dollars to throw into a system like this to "prime the pump" so to speak, and you valued a quick buck over scruples, why the hell wouldn't you try to pull something like this?/soapbox
... to this day. I am sure research can make it more efficient over time. Maybe by sensors that are able to locate devices so that power supplies can target them, therefore being more efficient. When devices are not in range, power supplies could be automatically switched off.
You're missing the point. Wireless power transmission is wasteful because it loses a large quanitiy of its initial output by massive (logarythmic) degrees as the distance is extended. This is a law of electromagnetic physics, not a limitation of current technology.
To do what you're saying, we would need to find a new way to transmit power that doesn't involve the EM spectrum. Which is hard to imagine since every form of energy from light and color to communications and electricity revolves around this model.
I think my girlfriend would forgive me, but I'm pretty sure I'd find myself out of a job, in a dozen harrassment suits, and pepper-sprayed blind, and that's just by the end of the week.
Before anyone asks, true to my sig, I just got done writing the prez elect and my senator about this, having expanded upon the idea.
What are 4 of the biggest concerns in America right now? Arguably: The economy, the environment, dependance on foreign oil, and the war(s).
If we were to take the money currently being used for corporate bailouts, and the money used to secure oil-producing nations, without having exact numbers to look at, I would estimate we would have enough money to at least significantly subsidize the building of a nationwide free energy infrastructure. If every American had free electricity, and was able to afford an electric car, we would solve all of the above concerns in one move (if you are of the position that the war in Iraq boils down to oil, which is always a topic for debate I suppose).
The last economic stimulus check I got was for roughly $500. I spend that much in electricity, natural gas, and gas for my car every two months or so. What would it do for the economy if every home in America was essentially given a $250 stimulus check EVERY MONTH? I'm thinking that would be the end of the economic crisis. Also, our personal oil demand would be trivial (used only as a backup in cars like the Volt), thus eliminating our need for foreign oil completely. All of a sudden our priority in the middle East changes dramatically (to be fair, I think we'd still need to pull out gracefully... We don't need another Iran Contra). And, we're talking a MASSIVE reduction in carbon footprint. No more of this 10% reduction in fossil fuels. I'm thinking more like 70 or 80. (Again, without any hard numbers to really look at).
I'd much rather support an initiative to give the country free power than I would bail out Citi financial, which is about to spend a few hundred million in taxpayer money to put their logo on the new Mets stadium. But that's just me.
Slashdot Mirror
...Or you could just install a Faraday cage (or metallic paint) inside prisoner cells. I would think a 5 sided coating (plus coating on the bars) would eliminate most of the signal, depending on the direction of the cell tower. I don't know much about the effects of metallic paint on cell signal, but I would guess signal reflection would do more damage than absorption (if it works anything like 802.11 networks). In which case, 5 way reflection should be sufficient.
I agree with this... except for the fact that this story came about when Keanu said he was on board for it. He's DEAD in the third film. I guess he can be digital only, but even the digital version of him blew up with all the other Smiths. I guess the 01 city backup tapes are pretty thorough...
You may be on to the root cause here. Disney has successfully marketed 50 year old movies for consistent new sales through this "vault" tactic. It makes sense, particularly if, quite frankly, your best intellectual property was created before we put a man on the moon.
This new DECE system would put a stop to that. At first I thought Disney may be trying to put themselves on the ethical side of the argument. Now I'm thinking they're just trying to protect their best interest. Either way, if their holding out on this, it's OK in my book, whatever their motivation.
Fail.
There have been numerous interviews with Hawking and other scientists, mathematicians, physicists, etc. that reference "god" as an unknown quantity in the face of stupendous data. Not to be confused with a deity. Einstein also wrote about "god" in this same reference, and he was a very well known atheist.
I wish I was a better student, and could make it through law school. I think I would love to practice the kind of law that you do. As it stands, I'm just an IT guy, and IT certifications are about as much structured schooling as I can make it through at one time. Ah, to stand up for the little guy. I salute you, sir.
I agree with this. If it weren't for my DVR, I would never have even known the new season of Sarah Connor had started. That has less to do with my viewing habits, and more to do with a crappy job of promoting the show.
Fox is generally on my shit list for this. I might have been the only person to arrange my schedule around so I could watch Drive (Nathon Fillion. Come ON!). They went on a break, and never came back. I gave serious thought to catching a plane so I could put a brick through the window of Fox corporate office. Sarah Connor Chronicles is one of the few shows on network TV that I watch. Dollhouse is on the list because it's Joss Whedon, and it's something the girlfriend and I can sit and watch together. Outside of that, though, it's all cable stuff, mostly Discovery channel stuff (Dirty Jobs FTW. Mike Rowe is my own personal Jesus (pronouncing that with a silent J makes it funnier given the subject matter)).
My point is, Fox has a hold on my household watching habits, and if it continues to take otherwise good shows and cancel them (or screw them over to the point where they get cancelled), then I'm sure I'm not the only person who will stop allowing themselves to be jerked around, and move exclusively over to cable, where the show schedulers tend not to be complete idiots.
I just realized how astroturf-y that sounded. My apologies. I think I need a bath now.
I googled some of these suggestions, and came out with another choice. When searching reviews for Avast and Antivir, it seems that a product called BitDefender tops the ratings whenever it is compared to these others. I didn't see anything negative on Google about it. Anyone tried it?
As you seem to be fairly experienced in such matters, what would you suggest as an alternative client for Windows systems? My old IT job used to run McAfee as part of their standard image, and I hated dealing with it. Norton always seemed like the lesser of those two evils, but in the last few years, their interface has gotten ridiculously huge, and now is filed in my mind as bloatware.
On my home machine, I just built a dual quad-core Xeon (I do a lot of recording/post production on the side from the day job), so while resources are not much of a concern (still seeing a bit of a bottleneck under heavy loads from my SATA HDs, should have sprung for the SSD. :) ), I'd still like to find a streamlined client that will do AV/spyware, with the automatic updates I've grown accustomed to in Norton/McAfee products. Suggestions?
I was reading about TorrentPrivacy last week, and it sounded nice, except the site gave me a heavy "fishy" vibe, and they charge a fee for their service.
I'm reading up on OneSwarm, but I don't know enough about the technology to know if this works the same way, or better than TP. Any thoughts?
Unless this place has a sniper with a tranq rifle sitting above the screen to take down self-absorbed jackasses talking during the movie, I don't think it will help. There's a nifty arts cinema that recently started playing about half mainstream stuff here in town. It's on the other side of town from me, but I'll go for the smaller theater size, better concession options (white chocolate popcorn FTW) and the ability to bring in drinks from the attached bar. However, that said, I still have a consistant track record of people kicking my seat, talking during the movie, or texting someone every 5 minutes, and holding the phone screen-out so I know when they have a text message before they do.
I just spent my tax rebate on about $2K worth of computer equipment, otherwise I'd be investing in home theater stuff. Which is more than likely what I'll be doing with my rebate next year. I have a nice shotgun room in my basement (about 10 feet by 30 feet) that will make for a perfect home theater. All I have to do is waterproof the basement (or water-resist, as I have been learning), throw up some drywall and carpet, and the rest is just the equipment I need to simulate a trip to the cinema. A nice projector and sound system, and my file server with all of the movies I might or might not have sits right on the other side of the wall. I think more people will be doing this in the future, as the combination of better/cheaper components mixes with the further proliferation of electronic compies of movies.
I couldn't agree more. The last 3 movies I've seen in a theater were without exception ruined by either other movie-goers, or another factor like idiotic theater staff or sticky floors. I LOVE movies, but I'm almost to the point of swearing off going to the cinema.
I might or might not pirate movies from time to time, but if I did, the vast majority of them would be movies I've seen before, usually in the theater. While I wouldn't be paying for these hypothetical movies, it is a matter of convenient acquisition of movies, so that I can access them anytime I want and watch them at my convenience.
I DO pay for a Netflix subscription. Which, when combined with my XBox, allows me to access a lot of movies at almost the same convenience factor of the ones sitting on my hard drive. This is an example of turning someone who might or might not have pilfered the occasional torrented movie into someone paying a fair price for a fair shake. Netflix does include a measure of DRM, essentially making it impossible (that I am aware of) to copy the streamed moves to disc- or if you can, it would equate to copying a song off the radio-post stream and all that. However, Netflix applies this DRM without making me feel like a criminal for trying to access my content in a normal manner.
This is the ONLY example of a major media outlet actually taking advantage of new technologies to expand their offerings. But I think that has a large part to do with the fact that Netflix IS the new technology. I'm sure Blockbuster would love to claim the part of the victim of new technology of they had a foot to stand on. From what I hear, they are circling the drain these days as a direct result of Netflix' market share.
They're called patents. If you make a nickel off everyone who uses your formula or proof, you're in the same boat as the rest of these cats.
As I understand it, TPB has long held that the website does not contain any copyrighted material, and that they don't distribute any copyrighted material. I guess what I'm getting is that the prosecution is trying to prove that pointing out the location of copyrighted material is a crime.
Given that corporate greed is a constant, (as evidenced by the US banks, who hoarde bailout money and spend it on sports stadium naming rights in the face of imminent economic collapse) I see this snowballing to the point where companies that manufacture software, like BitTorrent and Azureus will soon come under fire. They tried this with the gun industry, and have had mixed results for years. I think it's rediculous that you should be held accountable for someone potentially doing something illegal with the software you designed in good faith, and under the allowance of current law. It's an erosion of rights thorugh corporate lobbying that leads to this sort of behavior. As others have stated, artists won't see any extra income if bittorrent traffic in its entirety (not at stake in this trial, I know) comes to a halt. In fact,there is a good chance, I think, that the media companies pushing this witch hunt will find that even if they were somehow successful in completely ceasing all P2P trading of their content, they would not see any increase in revenue. To the contrary, the large population of people that hear about an artist via the medium will no longer have access to this method, and the proliferation of new music will slow down considerably, fueled only by expensive promoting methods. If the media companies want their 1970's revenues back, so be it. But I think they're also looking at 1970's revenue minus the adjustment for inflation.
Agreed. I bought some memory there a while back, through their in-store pickup option. I paid for it online, drove to the store, and had to wait 30 MINUTES for them to figure out how to process my order. Without exception, every time I went in to a Circuit City, I left disgusted and vowing to avoid shopping there again.
Incidentally, now that CC is closed, that mantle is being passed on to Fry's. The reps never know anything, assuming you can actually get one to help you, and they never have to part I'm looking for. It's either not stocked anymore, or they're always sold out of it. Sure it's fun to go in there and drool at the TVs, but I'm sticking to Newegg from now on.
#$%^. Not enough coffee. 3 meals/day * 5 people * 365 days/year * 3 years is 16,425 meals. Definitely drives my point home a bit further.
What you're not getting, is that they're concerned with finding a food source that can be replicated while en route to Mars. Say the Mars crew was 5 people strong. 3 years is 1095 days. For 5 people to eat 3 square meals a day, that's 5475 servings of food. Scratch that, not servings, but complete meals, which generally represent at least a couple servings of various food groups. The concern is that A.)You're packing a ton of extra weight that has to break Earth's gravity, and then adding in additional fuel to compensate, which then makes the craft even heavier. B.) That much food, even in compact forms like tuna cans and beef jerky, is still going to take a massive area just for storage. Again, extra weight added to craft for additional spacecraft real estate. C.)Survivability. Most of the foods you listed will not keep at room temperature for 3 years. Tuna, perhaps, but jerky, bagels, etc. Won't make it even close to that. You can freeze it, but this will also require extra gear, energy and materials to accomplish.
Now, if you were to introduce a renewable food source like the silk worm, most of those problems are reduced considerably. You leave orbit with only a seed population, and since their bodies, much like ours, are comprised mostly of water, it is not a straight equation of 1LB of worm food begets 1LB of worms. They eat leaves, which could theoretically also be grown using a minimum of resources, which only require light (free), water (recyclable) and soil (recyclable). Therefore you are netting a gain in food that is more than what you leave with from Earth.
I'm sure they will probably pack some regular food too, but likely more as an appeasement to keep the astronauts sane. It will be spaced out sparingly over a long ride, and is essentially a luxury. I view it a lot like the food situation in Firefly, where most of their diet is comprised from nondescript protein bars. If you didn't see the behind the scenes of them making those protein bars, I think you'd be looking at a very similar set of circumstances. Once the worms have been harvested, they can be processed any number of ways, including being refined and compacted into their most efficient form (bars). Then you add in a box of strawberries every now and then just to keep from going all bibbledy.
Actually, I had to look that up recently. It's not 3GB, it's 4GB. Here comes the science:
"Microsoft Windows XP Professional, designed as a 32-bit OS, supports an address range of up to 4 GB for virtual memory addresses and up to 4 GB for physical memory addresses. Because the physical memory addresses are sub-divided to manage both the computer's PCI memory address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM, the amount of available RAM is always less than 4 GB.
The PCI memory addresses starting down from 4 GB are used for things like the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges, PCI-Express, and video/graphics cards. The BIOS takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address. Then each of the other items mentioned are allocated address ranges below the BIOS range. The largest block of addresses is allocated for today's high performance graphics cards which need addresses for at least the amount of memory on the graphics card. The net result is that a high performance x86-based computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory) addresses are allocated.
RAM starts from address 0. The BIOS allocates RAM from 0 up to the bottom of the PCI memory addresses mentioned above, typically limiting available RAM to between 3 GB and 3.4 GB."
I actually learned something last week, thought I'd pass it on...
*Cue the "The More You Know" logo*
Um, I'm sorry but isn't Xeon still an Intel brand? There are quite a few offerings in the Xeon line that are quad core. In fact, I'm building a Socket 771 machine now with dual Xeon procs, and was interested to see how the Xeon quad 2.5GHz was going to stack up, (what I can afford) but no. Fail.
AT&T UVerse does not require a phone line for DSL, though I believe you still have to purchase TV service.
I agree with you there. Here in the midwest, where the solar output is only so-so, for my household power consumption, I'm looking at $40,000 to convert to solar. I'd do it if it were cheaper, but since I already get wind-generated power from my local electric company (I pay a small premium for this, which I'm fine with), there's no reason to absorb the cost, as it would take approximately 44 years to recover the cost from such an upgrade (assuming I break even on power consumption vs. generation). Sure, the green power I use could then be redirected to other areas, created a larger abundance, but unless there is a sizeable government intervention, there's just no way I can justify that kind of personal contribution toward the collective good.
Warner is proceeding under the assumption that if they apply their big guns to this, they will get it pushed through. Especially for those colleges that would rather roll over and pass the bill to the students than fight for their rights. If I were a big music exec, I'd be doing the same thing. It's free money, even if only a handful of schools agree.
What burns me about it is that it's obviously a money grab, and it's so blatantly immoral it kills me that it's reached this level of attention. First off, why Warner? Why do they get the money? Second off, I'm a musician on the side, and I put out albums on a regular basis which make money here on a local level. If my band's album is downloaded on a college campus, is some of that tax going to go to me, if I have no affiliation with Warner? NO! So not only are they getting money for music that may or may not even be downloaded, they're getting money for content that isn't even theirs to profit on.
It's my opinion that the music industry has an standing policy of "do everything you think you can get away with", which, when combined with the more venerated "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" puts them in the frame of mind to do this. And if they get away with it, even a little bit, they're making money. For those lamenting that these guys are clinging to a dying business model, wake up and look around. This is the new business model! Use your clout and presence to try and get as much free money as you can, while doing damage control on the other side to stem any repercussions from less than moral practices. If you had millions of dollars to throw into a system like this to "prime the pump" so to speak, and you valued a quick buck over scruples, why the hell wouldn't you try to pull something like this? /soapbox
... to this day. I am sure research can make it more efficient over time. Maybe by sensors that are able to locate devices so that power supplies can target them, therefore being more efficient. When devices are not in range, power supplies could be automatically switched off.
You're missing the point. Wireless power transmission is wasteful because it loses a large quanitiy of its initial output by massive (logarythmic) degrees as the distance is extended. This is a law of electromagnetic physics, not a limitation of current technology.
To do what you're saying, we would need to find a new way to transmit power that doesn't involve the EM spectrum. Which is hard to imagine since every form of energy from light and color to communications and electricity revolves around this model.
I think my girlfriend would forgive me, but I'm pretty sure I'd find myself out of a job, in a dozen harrassment suits, and pepper-sprayed blind, and that's just by the end of the week.
Before anyone asks, true to my sig, I just got done writing the prez elect and my senator about this, having expanded upon the idea.
What are 4 of the biggest concerns in America right now? Arguably: The economy, the environment, dependance on foreign oil, and the war(s).
If we were to take the money currently being used for corporate bailouts, and the money used to secure oil-producing nations, without having exact numbers to look at, I would estimate we would have enough money to at least significantly subsidize the building of a nationwide free energy infrastructure. If every American had free electricity, and was able to afford an electric car, we would solve all of the above concerns in one move (if you are of the position that the war in Iraq boils down to oil, which is always a topic for debate I suppose).
The last economic stimulus check I got was for roughly $500. I spend that much in electricity, natural gas, and gas for my car every two months or so. What would it do for the economy if every home in America was essentially given a $250 stimulus check EVERY MONTH? I'm thinking that would be the end of the economic crisis. Also, our personal oil demand would be trivial (used only as a backup in cars like the Volt), thus eliminating our need for foreign oil completely. All of a sudden our priority in the middle East changes dramatically (to be fair, I think we'd still need to pull out gracefully... We don't need another Iran Contra). And, we're talking a MASSIVE reduction in carbon footprint. No more of this 10% reduction in fossil fuels. I'm thinking more like 70 or 80. (Again, without any hard numbers to really look at).
I'd much rather support an initiative to give the country free power than I would bail out Citi financial, which is about to spend a few hundred million in taxpayer money to put their logo on the new Mets stadium. But that's just me.