Actually, I'm fairly sure you're wrong here. Please explain how these particles are bouncing "back and forth" "inside" a N-S permanent magnet. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me and I call BS. Not to mention the fact we have observed a charged particle emission from the poles in black holes. If charged particles continually entered the Earth and get stuck bouncing back and forth the Earth would gain mass, conservation of energy would be violated, and over 4.3 billion years or so, that would be significant. Theory is great but occasionally you have to apply tests to those theories to make sure you actually are thinking correctly. Which is often not the case (well except in pre-planned school classes where you know what the result "should" be).
Furthermore, were high energy particles bouncing back and forth inside the Earth that might make the Earth the world's largest MASER. Producing exactly the effect which you say can't happen (ie the poles would be natural microwave ovens). Particles bouncing back and forth, not escaping, knocking out other particles, releasing EM waves as a side effect, creating a cascade event, resulting stimulated emission of radiation at the poles. Brilliant!
There was a link on./ a week ago regarding online comment sections being completely worthless. It was almost ironic that it was posted in./, probably best known for its comments sections, and I refuse to let the same thing happen here without a fight.
Obligatory.
You're obviously new here.
/. comments are famous for being completely worthless. Or you just don't read enough of them. That's why there's a rating system. So you can easily see the really worthless ones, and ignore the worthwhile ones.
Also, if he hadn't been so snarky and actually had any creativity, he might have found some engineering that could be done on the apparatus to make it steady state. I haven't read the article, and not sure I'd want to be inside a space vehicle generating a 100T magnetic steady state or not.
A little engineering knowledge might have helped him see beyond his theoretical physics knowledge, which itself is lacking, as has been pointed out.
The fact the field is transient doesn't mean it needs to be that way. One could use multiple banks of capacitors to keep a constant charge, with some sine wave fluctuation of max and min field. A proper ship design would keep you from frying your components and passengers. I have no idea what a 100T field would do to people, but my guess is it's not harmless.
While the poster seeking to make this into some spaceship protection field, clearly didn't have a grasp of the science vs science-fiction. Being a jerk explaining that doesn't help.
How do you know it is not equal to a lost sale? Or no lost revenue? Can you prove any of those claims? Are you sure absolutely no one downloaded at least one copy rather than buy one? Because I know at least three people who have done exactly that. So at least lost sales from at least three people to some artists right there.
Let me ask this question, because I'm really curious to an answer.
Let say someone downloads a copy of a popular movie, burns a 1000 copies with official looking prints and seals them in original looking wrappers, and takes them and gives them out for free in front of a store where the movie has just been released for initial sale. Does that still not cause harm to the author, distributor, performers, etc.? After all the copies don't cost them anything, they haven't lost anything.
Digitally sharing is no different except you leave out the physical copy. Instead of a physical copy you give a physical representation of a physical copy (basically an "electronic photocopy") on a remote physical device from your physical device. No physical property was exchanged. It's like bringing your all-in-one printer to a bookstore and people bring paper and ink and make copies of books for free.
Wow! I got scored a troll, for stating the obvious truth.
Looks to me like you stated an opinion. Still, I don't think it should be modded down.
I expected to get modded down. the troll, while not surprising I wasn't expecting. But iiwii.
Nothing here proves that it's absolutely wrong.
Yes, it's hard to prove a positive. Entire books are written just to prove a single positive. That's a bit more than I'm willing to commit to this, farse.
YEs, not exactly apples to apples.
Then why bring it up? One involves theft in the traditional sense.
One needs points of reference, in an argument. You use what similarities you can and extrapolate.
2) It's wrong because it lets say you contracted with me to build a computer for $2000. At the end I pay you only the cost of the parts. So I made you work for free. Still not quite apples for apples.
You wasted their time. Not theft, but I'd say that's at least harm. Indeed it's not "apples to apples" because, as far as I know, copyright infringers don't waste anyone's (but their own) time.
I disagree with your argument here, but not going to bother debating it.
3) It's wrong because someone, not you wrote that song/video and gets paid, far too little, for every copy sold.
How do you define "too little"? That's subjective.
"Too little" relatively. The studios take more than they should and the artists get too little in relation to the profit the studios make. Music and movies could be much less expensive than they are, and the industry is soaking everyone, on both sides of the equation.
For this point, in order to conclude that it's wrong, you'd seemingly have to conclude that causing a loss of potential profit for someone else is wrong. I don't necessarily believe this is true. I lose the opportunity to gain all the time (someone didn't give me all of their money even though they could have), but I would never say I was harmed or that it is theft.
As for whether it's wrong, I believe that's subjective.
That's not an apples to apples comparison you're making there. they fact someone didn't give you all their money has no relevance to someone didn't give you the amount of money you asked for a product you produced. Simply because it's possible now to make a copy of something without taking a physical product makes the product no less real. you are taking a product and making you own copies of a product someone else is charging money for. The fact you can do this without taking a copy make it no less theft, it just means it is harder to track. Let's try another example. You make a digital copy of a song, and stand on the street outside a music store and offer to give a free copy to anyone going into that store to buy a copy of that song. Have you harmed the creator? Can you really, honestly say that the author is not harmed by that?
How so? That sounds subjective. And it's also kind of ironic to me considering that you seem to be saying that I'm absolutely wrong and you're 100% right.
Yes I am 100% right and you're 100% wrong. In this case.
with society
I also hope this isn't an appeal to popularity.
The fact is that in order for society to function certain things need to happen.
What "simple morality"? I've seen no evidence of absolute morals.
And therein lies your problem.
to protect us from fools like you
... Do you just assume that anyone who takes issue with anything in your comments is automatically part of the opposition?
The real issue I had was with your use of the word "wrong."
Wrong. I shouldn't have to explain right from wron
No, the mythos was that Robin Hood, a Saxon lord, was stealing from the Norman overlords who were oppressing the poor (and taking more than their fair share and keeping it for themselves, rather than pay the ransom for the king) to give to the poor and to pay the good King Richard's ransom.
Context matters.
Even though the reality was totally the reverse. That King John was the good king and Richard taxed his people to the hilt to pay for his warring ways. In fact Richard was so deep in debt, that John sold the King of France, the half of France he owned after Richard's death to get out of debt. Were it not for a (un)lucky bow shot, killing Richard, France and England would likely look very different today.
Ah, so your solution is, if people are creative enough to be able to make a living in selling their creative works, don't? Go get a job doing something else, like flipping burgers in McDs or greeting people at WM. Don't go and write that music, or novel or book or movie or computer game, because people would rather take their hard work and give it away for free than pay them, or their overlords who pay them.
The one that motivates me, is that someone spent time making a song or a movie in the hopes of making money from the creative output of their mind. What people are doing by giving away free copies of someone else's creative process without paying the creator is no different than me going to the bookstore, digitally copying every page of a national best seller, and then going home and posting the entire book online for free to all takers.
Which is no different than taking said digital copy and making paper copies and selling them, to recoup my costs. I was never going to read the book anyway, and I would never have bought a copy of the book. So how is it wrong? Right.
That's the argument. He didn't lose any sales none of those people I gave copies to would buy the book. Although, I find it hard to believe that anyone can answer that question, because I'm fairly sure there isn't any click-through agreement on any filesharing site saying they swear they would never buy a copy anyway. Now even if it were so, it still wouldn't be right. It is equivalent to those people who sit in their cars with radios to watch drive-in movies for free. Or more equivalent, people who sit in their cars and videotape it for free and then distribute it online for free. Anyone who can't see any of this is wrong is just not worth the time trying to explain it further. You obviously can see it.
Of course, I added a twist in there with the selling. But only to make a point. I also know that some of those who download, do buy, and some say they download copies of stuff they already have (silly really, since all you have to do is rip a copy from the copy you have).
But I was always taught not to take things that don't belong to me. So, that's also why I say it's wrong, because my mother told me so. And I believe my mother, over any stranger I don't know.
Wow! I got scored a troll, for stating the obvious truth. Well, no surprise there. How is it wrong? Ok, so how is it wrong?
1) You didn't create that music or movie. Therefore it's not yours to give away free to the whole world. Just as it would be wrong for me to come in and collect your paycheck for the work that you did and give it away to everyone in the whole world. YEs, not exactly apples to apples.
2) It's wrong because it lets say you contracted with me to build a computer for $2000. At the end I pay you only the cost of the parts. So I made you work for free. Still not quite apples for apples.
3) It's wrong because someone, not you wrote that song/video and gets paid, far too little, for every copy sold. You've now made it available to the world for free. That person gets no money from that. While you will say well he wouldn't have sold them anyway. How do you know, do you ask everyone before they download, whether they'd pay for a copy if they couldn't download it? If you and everyone isn't willing to buy it then why download it? Is no one's time worth any money except yours?
4) The fact that you can't see what is wrong with taking something that doesn't belong to you and making copies, which the law says you cannot do, and giving it away for free, which the law says you cannot do, only proves you have no understanding of right and wrong or just won't admit to it.
It has nothing to do with religion. Just because you're a bigoted fool doesn't make the rest of us so. It has to do with the law, with society and with the simple morality that transcends religion to the benefit of society as a whole. Hence we have laws, and rules, and customs to protect us from fools like you who would be perfectly willing to go out and kill people simply because they could do it.
PS, I said nothing about heart, but if I were to add a qualifier, it would have been "You know it in your brain". Because that's the part of the body that actually does the thinking, even in your case.
I expect to get flamed and modded down for this. But if I had any mod points right now, I'd mod Suren +5 insightful. Well except, I could only mod him +1 insightful.
And except for the fact that making copies of music/movies you own and sharing with others isn't really piracy, but sharing with unlimited strangers is simply wrong, and y'all know it is. Whether you will admit it or not.
And except for the fact that breaking DRM to make legitimate copies of your stuff is totally not piracy and should by all accounts be a fair use right. Oh wait it is, except for that vile DMCA.
So, perhaps the Movie and Music industry brought some of this "piracy" on themselves. Still doesn't make filesharing of others copyrighted work right. I too prefer the "piracy" over tyranny. Until such time as media companies figure this out, they won't see one penny from me.
It seems Zaentz, has this covered. He filed a trademark in 2011 which covers this line of business. So, he's nice and timely. Had the bar owners trademarked their drinks 20 years ago, they'd be fine now. But "Whosover files first wins", in trademark law.
Yes, running from a thumbdrive is extremely effective, at protecting your unmounted harddrive while browsing. In addition, you could keep a known clean image of the thumbdrive on your harddrive, and everytime you plan to use the thumbdrive you first push down the clean image from the laptop. Or keep several thumbdrives, that you cycle and refresh. That way you minimize the risk of infecting your machine from the thumbdrive. Different root passwords for the thumb and laptop. Etc.
Correct. Matter/Energy in the Universe remains constant. Is neither created nor destroyed.
As was the case here. They pumped in a hellacious amount of heat energy to produce a tiny amount of light. Brilliant! They invented an LED lit toaster oven! The LED warns you the oven is HOT! Hoo hah.
Second part, yes you missed something. And no, I won't do your homework.
I doubt you could cool beer with an LED that is a few degrees cooler than 135C. I could be wrong, but I think you might wind up boiling a few molecules of beer with those LEDs. The ambient temperature around those LEDs is 135C. The article didn't say how much they cooled down. But I'm betting it was less than 135C.
Absolutely! As long as you like to heat your everyday places to 275 Fahrenheit (135C). Personally that's a bit too warm for my tastes. I'm not sure how much it costs to heat a house to 275F, but I bet it would cost less to just use some regular less than 230% efficient LEDs.
It didn't emit more power than it consumed. It emitted more light energy than it consumed electrical energy. It also consumed a great deal of heat energy to produce some of that light energy out. So they used two power sources to produce a device with a classical Carnot cycle energy conversion cycle at significantly less than 100% efficiency. But they ignored the half of the equation with the supplied heat energy to say, " Look we're more than 100% efficient".
To use a car analogy, because there's always a car analogy, it like putting in an (400HP equiv.) electric motor and 400 HP gas motor into a car and hooking them up simultaneously to the power drive and say look my gas engine drives my car at 800HP and it only inputs 400HP.
Yeah, the whole article is a crock of Bull. It takes electricity fed in + heat to convert into more proportionate light out than the electricity alone could produce. So all you have to do is redefine what efficiency means, or throw part of the system away to say you've produced an efficiency greater than unity. So, MIT Physicists are aspiring to become statisticians. Bleech!
Depends. If I have time to be at your computer while you're logged in, it takes only a few seconds to disable noScript and Adblock. Restarting FF or Chrome, if necessary. So NoScript and Adblock are NOT a defense against the Black Arts against anyone who has, limited, physical access to your machine. Running off a thumbdrive, still allows one to compromise the thumbdrive. unless you've made the thumbdrive non-writtable in some non-trivial way. Compromising Linux is harder, unless the user is running with root privileges. If you've just run a "sudo" command recently you are vulnerable to any attack needing root privs. A "smart" malicious code running in RAM, should be able to detect such an event and exploit it. I'm not sure, if anyone has made such a hack, but I could do it fairly trivially. If I can do it trivially, there are thousands of others who could also. While. I'd like to claim to be a super elite Linux white-hat/gray-hat hacker, I'm not. Sure, I know how to write drivers and shell scripts, and can code in many computer languages, I'm no Alan Cox.
Your holy Grail is more holey than Holy. There are very limited things that can be done with stock equipment, and physical access to a machine will always be among the most dangerous attack vectors. Still the thumbdrive, with no privileges and no sudo, running only in a VM is about as close as mere mortals can reasonably hope for now. So it really depends on how secure you made the thumbdrive. Implementation is important. Your design may be a good one, but unless it is implemented correctly it is not going to be necessarily effective.
I think you need to be a little more detailed at the "and then magic happens" step.
If I can compromise your notebook in two minutes, it was never properly secured. How do you intend to get your backdoor on there? Type it in? Oh, you assume I have an optical drive and USB ports that will accept any arbitrary device someone happens to plug in?
How about this. I type in a url in your webbrowser and download my payload in 30 seconds or less and all your data now belong to me.There that wasn't so hard was it? It takes less than you'd like to think to infect a machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'm fairly sure you're wrong here. Please explain how these particles are bouncing "back and forth" "inside" a N-S permanent magnet. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me and I call BS. Not to mention the fact we have observed a charged particle emission from the poles in black holes. If charged particles continually entered the Earth and get stuck bouncing back and forth the Earth would gain mass, conservation of energy would be violated, and over 4.3 billion years or so, that would be significant. Theory is great but occasionally you have to apply tests to those theories to make sure you actually are thinking correctly. Which is often not the case (well except in pre-planned school classes where you know what the result "should" be).
Furthermore, were high energy particles bouncing back and forth inside the Earth that might make the Earth the world's largest MASER. Producing exactly the effect which you say can't happen (ie the poles would be natural microwave ovens). Particles bouncing back and forth, not escaping, knocking out other particles, releasing EM waves as a side effect, creating a cascade event, resulting stimulated emission of radiation at the poles. Brilliant!
Obligatory.
You're obviously new here.
/. comments are famous for being completely worthless. Or you just don't read enough of them. That's why there's a rating system. So you can easily see the really worthless ones, and ignore the worthwhile ones.
Also, if he hadn't been so snarky and actually had any creativity, he might have found some engineering that could be done on the apparatus to make it steady state. I haven't read the article, and not sure I'd want to be inside a space vehicle generating a 100T magnetic steady state or not.
A little engineering knowledge might have helped him see beyond his theoretical physics knowledge, which itself is lacking, as has been pointed out.
The fact the field is transient doesn't mean it needs to be that way. One could use multiple banks of capacitors to keep a constant charge, with some sine wave fluctuation of max and min field. A proper ship design would keep you from frying your components and passengers. I have no idea what a 100T field would do to people, but my guess is it's not harmless.
While the poster seeking to make this into some spaceship protection field, clearly didn't have a grasp of the science vs science-fiction. Being a jerk explaining that doesn't help.
Bananas are not seedless. Slice a banana down the length in the center, and you'll see the seeds. They're very small.
How do you know it is not equal to a lost sale? Or no lost revenue? Can you prove any of those claims? Are you sure absolutely no one downloaded at least one copy rather than buy one? Because I know at least three people who have done exactly that. So at least lost sales from at least three people to some artists right there.
Let me ask this question, because I'm really curious to an answer.
Let say someone downloads a copy of a popular movie, burns a 1000 copies with official looking prints and seals them in original looking wrappers, and takes them and gives them out for free in front of a store where the movie has just been released for initial sale. Does that still not cause harm to the author, distributor, performers, etc.? After all the copies don't cost them anything, they haven't lost anything.
Digitally sharing is no different except you leave out the physical copy. Instead of a physical copy you give a physical representation of a physical copy (basically an "electronic photocopy") on a remote physical device from your physical device. No physical property was exchanged. It's like bringing your all-in-one printer to a bookstore and people bring paper and ink and make copies of books for free.
Wow! I got scored a troll, for stating the obvious truth.
Looks to me like you stated an opinion. Still, I don't think it should be modded down.
I expected to get modded down. the troll, while not surprising I wasn't expecting. But iiwii.
Nothing here proves that it's absolutely wrong.
Yes, it's hard to prove a positive. Entire books are written just to prove a single positive. That's a bit more than I'm willing to commit to this, farse.
YEs, not exactly apples to apples.
Then why bring it up? One involves theft in the traditional sense.
One needs points of reference, in an argument. You use what similarities you can and extrapolate.
2) It's wrong because it lets say you contracted with me to build a computer for $2000. At the end I pay you only the cost of the parts. So I made you work for free. Still not quite apples for apples.
You wasted their time. Not theft, but I'd say that's at least harm. Indeed it's not "apples to apples" because, as far as I know, copyright infringers don't waste anyone's (but their own) time.
I disagree with your argument here, but not going to bother debating it.
3) It's wrong because someone, not you wrote that song/video and gets paid, far too little, for every copy sold.
How do you define "too little"? That's subjective.
"Too little" relatively. The studios take more than they should and the artists get too little in relation to the profit the studios make. Music and movies could be much less expensive than they are, and the industry is soaking everyone, on both sides of the equation.
For this point, in order to conclude that it's wrong, you'd seemingly have to conclude that causing a loss of potential profit for someone else is wrong. I don't necessarily believe this is true. I lose the opportunity to gain all the time (someone didn't give me all of their money even though they could have), but I would never say I was harmed or that it is theft.
As for whether it's wrong, I believe that's subjective.
That's not an apples to apples comparison you're making there. they fact someone didn't give you all their money has no relevance to someone didn't give you the amount of money you asked for a product you produced. Simply because it's possible now to make a copy of something without taking a physical product makes the product no less real. you are taking a product and making you own copies of a product someone else is charging money for. The fact you can do this without taking a copy make it no less theft, it just means it is harder to track. Let's try another example. You make a digital copy of a song, and stand on the street outside a music store and offer to give a free copy to anyone going into that store to buy a copy of that song. Have you harmed the creator? Can you really, honestly say that the author is not harmed by that?
How so? That sounds subjective. And it's also kind of ironic to me considering that you seem to be saying that I'm absolutely wrong and you're 100% right.
Yes I am 100% right and you're 100% wrong. In this case.
with society
I also hope this isn't an appeal to popularity.
The fact is that in order for society to function certain things need to happen.
What "simple morality"? I've seen no evidence of absolute morals.
And therein lies your problem.
to protect us from fools like you
... Do you just assume that anyone who takes issue with anything in your comments is automatically part of the opposition?
The real issue I had was with your use of the word "wrong."
Wrong. I shouldn't have to explain right from wron
No, the mythos was that Robin Hood, a Saxon lord, was stealing from the Norman overlords who were oppressing the poor (and taking more than their fair share and keeping it for themselves, rather than pay the ransom for the king) to give to the poor and to pay the good King Richard's ransom.
Context matters.
Even though the reality was totally the reverse. That King John was the good king and Richard taxed his people to the hilt to pay for his warring ways. In fact Richard was so deep in debt, that John sold the King of France, the half of France he owned after Richard's death to get out of debt. Were it not for a (un)lucky bow shot, killing Richard, France and England would likely look very different today.
Ah, so your solution is, if people are creative enough to be able to make a living in selling their creative works, don't? Go get a job doing something else, like flipping burgers in McDs or greeting people at WM. Don't go and write that music, or novel or book or movie or computer game, because people would rather take their hard work and give it away for free than pay them, or their overlords who pay them.
Ah a moral relativist, that still clings to moral principals that protect him, but damn all others whom he doesn't care to protect.
And I got modded a troll. wow.
The one that motivates me, is that someone spent time making a song or a movie in the hopes of making money from the creative output of their mind. What people are doing by giving away free copies of someone else's creative process without paying the creator is no different than me going to the bookstore, digitally copying every page of a national best seller, and then going home and posting the entire book online for free to all takers.
Which is no different than taking said digital copy and making paper copies and selling them, to recoup my costs. I was never going to read the book anyway, and I would never have bought a copy of the book. So how is it wrong? Right.
That's the argument. He didn't lose any sales none of those people I gave copies to would buy the book. Although, I find it hard to believe that anyone can answer that question, because I'm fairly sure there isn't any click-through agreement on any filesharing site saying they swear they would never buy a copy anyway. Now even if it were so, it still wouldn't be right. It is equivalent to those people who sit in their cars with radios to watch drive-in movies for free. Or more equivalent, people who sit in their cars and videotape it for free and then distribute it online for free. Anyone who can't see any of this is wrong is just not worth the time trying to explain it further. You obviously can see it.
Of course, I added a twist in there with the selling. But only to make a point. I also know that some of those who download, do buy, and some say they download copies of stuff they already have (silly really, since all you have to do is rip a copy from the copy you have).
But I was always taught not to take things that don't belong to me. So, that's also why I say it's wrong, because my mother told me so. And I believe my mother, over any stranger I don't know.
Wow! I got scored a troll, for stating the obvious truth. Well, no surprise there. How is it wrong? Ok, so how is it wrong?
1) You didn't create that music or movie. Therefore it's not yours to give away free to the whole world. Just as it would be wrong for me to come in and collect your paycheck for the work that you did and give it away to everyone in the whole world. YEs, not exactly apples to apples.
2) It's wrong because it lets say you contracted with me to build a computer for $2000. At the end I pay you only the cost of the parts. So I made you work for free. Still not quite apples for apples.
3) It's wrong because someone, not you wrote that song/video and gets paid, far too little, for every copy sold. You've now made it available to the world for free. That person gets no money from that. While you will say well he wouldn't have sold them anyway. How do you know, do you ask everyone before they download, whether they'd pay for a copy if they couldn't download it? If you and everyone isn't willing to buy it then why download it? Is no one's time worth any money except yours?
4) The fact that you can't see what is wrong with taking something that doesn't belong to you and making copies, which the law says you cannot do, and giving it away for free, which the law says you cannot do, only proves you have no understanding of right and wrong or just won't admit to it.
It has nothing to do with religion. Just because you're a bigoted fool doesn't make the rest of us so. It has to do with the law, with society and with the simple morality that transcends religion to the benefit of society as a whole. Hence we have laws, and rules, and customs to protect us from fools like you who would be perfectly willing to go out and kill people simply because they could do it.
PS, I said nothing about heart, but if I were to add a qualifier, it would have been "You know it in your brain". Because that's the part of the body that actually does the thinking, even in your case.
I expect to get flamed and modded down for this. But if I had any mod points right now, I'd mod Suren +5 insightful.
Well except, I could only mod him +1 insightful.
And except for the fact that making copies of music/movies you own and sharing with others isn't really piracy, but sharing with unlimited strangers is simply wrong, and y'all know it is. Whether you will admit it or not.
And except for the fact that breaking DRM to make legitimate copies of your stuff is totally not piracy and should by all accounts be a fair use right. Oh wait it is, except for that vile DMCA.
So, perhaps the Movie and Music industry brought some of this "piracy" on themselves. Still doesn't make filesharing of others copyrighted work right. I too prefer the "piracy" over tyranny. Until such time as media companies figure this out, they won't see one penny from me.
It seems Zaentz, has this covered. He filed a trademark in 2011 which covers this line of business. So, he's nice and timely. Had the bar owners trademarked their drinks 20 years ago, they'd be fine now. But "Whosover files first wins", in trademark law.
Yes, running from a thumbdrive is extremely effective, at protecting your unmounted harddrive while browsing. In addition, you could keep a known clean image of the thumbdrive on your harddrive, and everytime you plan to use the thumbdrive you first push down the clean image from the laptop. Or keep several thumbdrives, that you cycle and refresh. That way you minimize the risk of infecting your machine from the thumbdrive. Different root passwords for the thumb and laptop. Etc.
Lots of other tricks.
Correct. Matter/Energy in the Universe remains constant. Is neither created nor destroyed.
As was the case here. They pumped in a hellacious amount of heat energy to produce a tiny amount of light. Brilliant! They invented an LED lit toaster oven! The LED warns you the oven is HOT! Hoo hah.
Second part, yes you missed something. And no, I won't do your homework.
Edit? on /.? What are you some kind of religious nutjob zealot. Or just new here? I sure hope you didn't do any spell-checking. That's strictly Taboo.
I doubt you could cool beer with an LED that is a few degrees cooler than 135C. I could be wrong, but I think you might wind up boiling a few molecules of beer with those LEDs. The ambient temperature around those LEDs is 135C. The article didn't say how much they cooled down. But I'm betting it was less than 135C.
Absolutely! As long as you like to heat your everyday places to 275 Fahrenheit (135C). Personally that's a bit too warm for my tastes. I'm not sure how much it costs to heat a house to 275F, but I bet it would cost less to just use some regular less than 230% efficient LEDs.
It didn't emit more power than it consumed. It emitted more light energy than it consumed electrical energy. It also consumed a great deal of heat energy to produce some of that light energy out. So they used two power sources to produce a device with a classical Carnot cycle energy conversion cycle at significantly less than 100% efficiency. But they ignored the half of the equation with the supplied heat energy to say, " Look we're more than 100% efficient".
To use a car analogy, because there's always a car analogy, it like putting in an (400HP equiv.) electric motor and 400 HP gas motor into a car and hooking them up simultaneously to the power drive and say look my gas engine drives my car at 800HP and it only inputs 400HP.
Yeah, the whole article is a crock of Bull. It takes electricity fed in + heat to convert into more proportionate light out than the electricity alone could produce. So all you have to do is redefine what efficiency means, or throw part of the system away to say you've produced an efficiency greater than unity. So, MIT Physicists are aspiring to become statisticians. Bleech!
Depends. If I have time to be at your computer while you're logged in, it takes only a few seconds to disable noScript and Adblock. Restarting FF or Chrome, if necessary. So NoScript and Adblock are NOT a defense against the Black Arts against anyone who has, limited, physical access to your machine. Running off a thumbdrive, still allows one to compromise the thumbdrive. unless you've made the thumbdrive non-writtable in some non-trivial way. Compromising Linux is harder, unless the user is running with root privileges. If you've just run a "sudo" command recently you are vulnerable to any attack needing root privs. A "smart" malicious code running in RAM, should be able to detect such an event and exploit it. I'm not sure, if anyone has made such a hack, but I could do it fairly trivially. If I can do it trivially, there are thousands of others who could also. While. I'd like to claim to be a super elite Linux white-hat/gray-hat hacker, I'm not. Sure, I know how to write drivers and shell scripts, and can code in many computer languages, I'm no Alan Cox.
Your holy Grail is more holey than Holy. There are very limited things that can be done with stock equipment, and physical access to a machine will always be among the most dangerous attack vectors. Still the thumbdrive, with no privileges and no sudo, running only in a VM is about as close as mere mortals can reasonably hope for now. So it really depends on how secure you made the thumbdrive. Implementation is important. Your design may be a good one, but unless it is implemented correctly it is not going to be necessarily effective.
Do not flee from bankruptcy. Embrace it. It worked so well for SCO.
I think you need to be a little more detailed at the "and then magic happens" step.
If I can compromise your notebook in two minutes, it was never properly secured. How do you intend to get your backdoor on there? Type it in? Oh, you assume I have an optical drive and USB ports that will accept any arbitrary device someone happens to plug in?
How about this. I type in a url in your webbrowser and download my payload in 30 seconds or less and all your data now belong to me.There that wasn't so hard was it? It takes less than you'd like to think to infect a machine.
You've never taken any computers into China have you?
Yes 2.x had a bad memory leak. 3.6 still used more memory, out of the box, discounting the memory leak. Not everyone suffered from the memory leak.