A claim like this requires some explanation of how it could be done, and such an explanation is obviously missing from the article. You shouldn't try to make up explanations for them (although that is how this nonsense continues to thrive).
Other than a claim of "we did it" I see nothing to support the claim or any explanation of how on earth this could actually work. But I do see the acknowledgment that "If you ride your bike downwind at exactly wind speed you won't feel any wind either.". What this admits, at least to me, is that if such a wind powered vehicle did manage to make it all the way to the speed of the wind, then it would no longer "feel" any wind effect on it. With no wind effect on it, it would be unable to go any faster (and in a world with friction it wouldn't even get that fast). So the article claims it was done, but also gives good reason to believe that it can't be done and no argument for why it could be done.
Or to put it another way, if this thing can go through the point where it is going at the speed of the wind to then go faster than the wind the, assuming that it isn't storing energy from some time in the past and that the wind doesn't slow down, then it could also sit in zero mph wind and start going forward all by itself, just powered by a zero mph (non-existent) wind. Perhaps you believe that. I don't.
Wow, this is incredibly useful for any application where you need an indoor helicopter that you can keep in the air for hours and where you can also have a powerful laser beaming around dangerous laser beams.
Do you really believe what you say, or are you just trolling? Do you think you should have to lend out your Kindel just to lend one book? I don't have to lend out my entire library just to lend a book. and, having bought a physical book, I can choose to keep it after I've read it, or give it to a friend, or even give it to the public library. Giving away Kendels that way would be prohibitively expensive.
If I own the book I should be able to lend it for as long as I like, or lend it several times, or even give my copy away. They have the DRM technology in place to prevent theft of multiple copies, but they refuse to let the user do as he wishes with his own property (In spite of Amazon's own insistence of the rights of first ownership when they were aggressively into selling used books before the days of the Kindel and its DRM). As far as I'm concerned, if there is abusive DRM like this that diminishes the rights of the owner then I don't really own it, so I'll refuse to buy into the technology until they clean up their act.
So in other words, you don't know what the coordinates are. I get that the images that Google has are sometimes dated, but if the building is not there one might at least see some construction prep. Might even be something interesting there.
I've long heard of asterisk and I've visited the website (even downloaded it at one point) but what I fail to grock is what can an individual actually do with it? Maybe the Google link in will help, but I call Google voice with my land line, not voip, and Google chat's communication doesn't give me an inbound number. If I can use the technology for something interesting at home I would set up an asterisk system, but I just can't see what I can do with it.
It is certainly not impressive to everyone, the awarding has become dubious and maybe even a bad joke. Not so much the science prizes, but the Nobel peach prize winners in the last 20 years or so have more to do with politics than peace. Examples include one to someone for making a scientifically inaccurate movie and last year's award to a President running two wars and escalating one, which they acknowledged was not for anything at all that he had done, but rather was for what they hoped he would do!
And in this case maybe the science prizes are starting to suffer the same fate. Over the years the science prizes have been awarded many times years later, after the research and insights have been seen to produce results. I'm not comfortable with this particular reward being given in this case for a new fad material that has great promise but is very thin on substance (yea, a bad pun).
So I'm really not trying to troll, but I take exception with your statement that "winning the nobel is of course impressive".
Rather than look at this as a story about a big electronics company pushing around the little guy, I look at is as the right result reached, no matter by what means. I'm sick of seeing all of the patents that have been issued for things that were not really invented, just found to always exist and be useful. Perhaps they should be entitled to a patent on a fabrication method, on on a particular application (although that second one seems dubious), but not a patent on Graphene itself. That would be like suggesting basic elements could have been patented. Graphene is just a very common form of carbon that has long existed.
I don't keep my systems "up to date". The system I'm posting this from is still on XP SP1. And there is a good reason for that. I've only ever had one problem with anything that I got from the Internet. That one thing was a "Microsoft Security Update" that apparently managed to rewrite my NIC start-up parameters (all modern NICs have flash memory) in such a way that any OS that trusted the NICs start-up settings would be unable to use the interface. And guess what, Windows didn't trust the start-up configuration stored in the NIC but Linux did!
After that experience I decided that I was better of not trusting Microsoft to not deliberately muck up my hardware any way that they could. Of course, many others have suffered other ways in adopting Microsoft patches, or even have them forced on them without consent. I'll continue to trust my own ability to defend against the bad guys on the Internet, as far as I'm concerned Microsoft is one of the bad guys.
I still have a no longer supported copy of Win98 running on one system, quite happily and safely. I'm sure that Microsoft would love to pop up a message saying that since they no long want to support my old OSs that I can't use them to connect to the Internet any longer.
What are you whining about? I always use a cordless mouse with my laptop. And at times I use a full size separate keyboard too. A keyboard is rather bulky to lug around all of the time, but there is no reason that you can't keep one at home, perhaps even another at the office. A cordless mouse is a must. Buy wisely and you can add both to a laptop and use only one usb port. That basically gives you the same input capability that you already have with a desktop, but the portability and flexibility (and limitations) of a laptop.
No, lossy implies that information is lost. Quality is reduced. It can't be recovered. You can pull off tricks to try to make things look better (like cleaning up known artifacts from the jpeg process), but you can never get back the true lost data. I just doesn't make any sense that a process intended to produce better looking but still lossy images would preger to use corrupted images rather than the best images it could have.
This makes no sense to me. The/. summary claims the webp images are built from the jpeg images. The jpeg images have already suffered loss and thus sacrificed image quality, and if correct any further processing will only be worse, never better. The proper test would be to make a comparison between two forms of lossy compression based on a lossless source (such as a raw file), which I suspect may be what really happened in the comparison. Of course, some people will take poor quality jpeg images and try to compress them further, but you can't blame the bad results this will produce on the new format technology.
Will you have the fastest ship in the delta quadrant, be trying to go straight home as quickly as you can, and yet still keep running into the same enemies each time you make a stop?
Actually, that's not the case at all. If it were then there could be no objection to cameras in the court room. The truth is that the public record is far from complete. You can learn a lot by witnessing the process first hand and seeing so much that never makes it into the public record. The irony of a judge ruling that the motorist had a right to video the police officer because he had was preforming as a public official, and not having his ruling filmed should not be missed by anyone.
Couldn't you have used just the Unit System the whole world uses???
By that logic they should have also written it in Chinese, the most popular language on the planet. However,/. is U.S. centric and so using miles is perfectly rational. It might have been better to not give a measurement is meters. but those of us in the U.S. are not as up tight about that sort of thing as some people. Now excuse me while I open another 2 litter Coke.
The/. summary reads " It's still twenty million miles away so if it hits us, it won't happen until 2098". This statement seems to imply that because it is 20 million miles away it will take 88 years to get here. That implies a very poor understanding of basic math and science skills. 20 million miles is just not that much in terms of astronomy. The earth is about 93 million miles from the sun, and covers a distance of over 300 million miles each year as it falls around the sun. 20 million miles would not take this rock 88 years to reach us, the real issue is that its orbit and the earth's orbit don't intersect until 2098. Until then the rock may be closer or farther than 20 million miles from us, the 20 million is just a distance it was away from us at one time.
Rather than read about the judge's amazingly sane and rational decision, I would have preferred to see the video of him handing down the ruling, but I guess cameras are not allowed in the court room.
Wow! What a concept. Promote your site by doing something that may cause the majority of people who might be interested in it to delete their bookmarks and never come back.
The above was a sincere and honest response to the post. It is echoed by many other posts here. With a subject like that and the dark history of MJ, it should be expected. It strikes me as a shame that there are so many fans of drug abuse, child molestation and buying of white babies with mod points willing to abuse them by silencing a view that they don't agree with by labeling it the posting of a troll, but I guess they couldn't say much to defend an alternative view instead.
I use a local "desktop" firewall on all of my systems, which are behind a NAT router firewall. Mainly because I expect the firewalls to do different things.
I expect the router to keep unexpected things from getting to my local systems. I mostly want the local firewall so that applications that should not be sending stuff out of my computer don't. And so that I can disable an application from phoning home if I catch it. A nice secondary benefit is that my local firewall keeps tab on the md5 of all local applications, and warns me if any application is changed unexpectedly before it let it send data out of the computer.
Of course, a local firewall can be bypassed just by enlisting the browser (or other application that can be expected to have access to the internet). A clever program could sneak a small but critical amount of data out of your system just by passing a specially constructed URL to the browser. I don't know of any good way to completely stop this without crippling normal use of the browser, but one thing that I have done that helps me is to tell my firewalls that IE is not allowed to access the network at all. I never use IE, (anyone who does is clearly not interested in security), so it has no business sending data on the network, and blocking it only makes sense. A server firewall has no concept of what application originated the traffic, it just sees packets, so it can't do the same things that a local firewall can.
I also block all normal IRC traffic both at the local firewall and the router. I never use IRC, and it is a common mechanism for botnet control. So it just makes sense to not leave this hole open if I know I'm not going to be using it.
Oh come on, no way is this going to happen or work. It's not like the plane only holds the passenger compartment, and I can't see going to the effort to give the passengers a good view of the luggage, extra cargo, and distressed pets, which will all block the view, as well as letting the passengers see the condition of the wiring, landing gear and other controls. And even if the airlines really wanted to do this and found a way for all of the extra stuff to not block the view, the thickness of the curved hull would so drastically distort the view that it would not be worth doing.
It would be far simpler with today's technology to give everyone individual steerable, zoomable access to video cameras. I don't expect that to happen, and I don't believe that Airbus will ever build Wonder Woman's plane, the passenger version.
Slashdot Mirror
A claim like this requires some explanation of how it could be done, and such an explanation is obviously missing from the article. You shouldn't try to make up explanations for them (although that is how this nonsense continues to thrive).
Other than a claim of "we did it" I see nothing to support the claim or any explanation of how on earth this could actually work. But I do see the acknowledgment that "If you ride your bike downwind at exactly wind speed you won't feel any wind either." . What this admits, at least to me, is that if such a wind powered vehicle did manage to make it all the way to the speed of the wind, then it would no longer "feel" any wind effect on it. With no wind effect on it, it would be unable to go any faster (and in a world with friction it wouldn't even get that fast). So the article claims it was done, but also gives good reason to believe that it can't be done and no argument for why it could be done.
Or to put it another way, if this thing can go through the point where it is going at the speed of the wind to then go faster than the wind the, assuming that it isn't storing energy from some time in the past and that the wind doesn't slow down, then it could also sit in zero mph wind and start going forward all by itself, just powered by a zero mph (non-existent) wind. Perhaps you believe that. I don't.
Wow, this is incredibly useful for any application where you need an indoor helicopter that you can keep in the air for hours and where you can also have a powerful laser beaming around dangerous laser beams.
Do you really believe what you say, or are you just trolling? Do you think you should have to lend out your Kindel just to lend one book? I don't have to lend out my entire library just to lend a book. and, having bought a physical book, I can choose to keep it after I've read it, or give it to a friend, or even give it to the public library. Giving away Kendels that way would be prohibitively expensive.
If I own the book I should be able to lend it for as long as I like, or lend it several times, or even give my copy away. They have the DRM technology in place to prevent theft of multiple copies, but they refuse to let the user do as he wishes with his own property (In spite of Amazon's own insistence of the rights of first ownership when they were aggressively into selling used books before the days of the Kindel and its DRM). As far as I'm concerned, if there is abusive DRM like this that diminishes the rights of the owner then I don't really own it, so I'll refuse to buy into the technology until they clean up their act.
So in other words, you don't know what the coordinates are. I get that the images that Google has are sometimes dated, but if the building is not there one might at least see some construction prep. Might even be something interesting there.
I'm trying to find it on Google maps but can't. Does anyone have coordinates for where this actually is?
I've long heard of asterisk and I've visited the website (even downloaded it at one point) but what I fail to grock is what can an individual actually do with it? Maybe the Google link in will help, but I call Google voice with my land line, not voip, and Google chat's communication doesn't give me an inbound number. If I can use the technology for something interesting at home I would set up an asterisk system, but I just can't see what I can do with it.
winning the nobel is of course impressive.
It is certainly not impressive to everyone, the awarding has become dubious and maybe even a bad joke. Not so much the science prizes, but the Nobel peach prize winners in the last 20 years or so have more to do with politics than peace. Examples include one to someone for making a scientifically inaccurate movie and last year's award to a President running two wars and escalating one, which they acknowledged was not for anything at all that he had done, but rather was for what they hoped he would do!
And in this case maybe the science prizes are starting to suffer the same fate. Over the years the science prizes have been awarded many times years later, after the research and insights have been seen to produce results. I'm not comfortable with this particular reward being given in this case for a new fad material that has great promise but is very thin on substance (yea, a bad pun).
So I'm really not trying to troll, but I take exception with your statement that "winning the nobel is of course impressive".
Rather than look at this as a story about a big electronics company pushing around the little guy, I look at is as the right result reached, no matter by what means. I'm sick of seeing all of the patents that have been issued for things that were not really invented, just found to always exist and be useful. Perhaps they should be entitled to a patent on a fabrication method, on on a particular application (although that second one seems dubious), but not a patent on Graphene itself. That would be like suggesting basic elements could have been patented. Graphene is just a very common form of carbon that has long existed.
I don't keep my systems "up to date". The system I'm posting this from is still on XP SP1. And there is a good reason for that. I've only ever had one problem with anything that I got from the Internet. That one thing was a "Microsoft Security Update" that apparently managed to rewrite my NIC start-up parameters (all modern NICs have flash memory) in such a way that any OS that trusted the NICs start-up settings would be unable to use the interface. And guess what, Windows didn't trust the start-up configuration stored in the NIC but Linux did!
After that experience I decided that I was better of not trusting Microsoft to not deliberately muck up my hardware any way that they could. Of course, many others have suffered other ways in adopting Microsoft patches, or even have them forced on them without consent. I'll continue to trust my own ability to defend against the bad guys on the Internet, as far as I'm concerned Microsoft is one of the bad guys.
I still have a no longer supported copy of Win98 running on one system, quite happily and safely. I'm sure that Microsoft would love to pop up a message saying that since they no long want to support my old OSs that I can't use them to connect to the Internet any longer.
What are you whining about? I always use a cordless mouse with my laptop. And at times I use a full size separate keyboard too. A keyboard is rather bulky to lug around all of the time, but there is no reason that you can't keep one at home, perhaps even another at the office. A cordless mouse is a must. Buy wisely and you can add both to a laptop and use only one usb port. That basically gives you the same input capability that you already have with a desktop, but the portability and flexibility (and limitations) of a laptop.
No, lossy implies that information is lost. Quality is reduced. It can't be recovered. You can pull off tricks to try to make things look better (like cleaning up known artifacts from the jpeg process), but you can never get back the true lost data. I just doesn't make any sense that a process intended to produce better looking but still lossy images would preger to use corrupted images rather than the best images it could have.
This makes no sense to me. The /. summary claims the webp images are built from the jpeg images. The jpeg images have already suffered loss and thus sacrificed image quality, and if correct any further processing will only be worse, never better. The proper test would be to make a comparison between two forms of lossy compression based on a lossless source (such as a raw file), which I suspect may be what really happened in the comparison. Of course, some people will take poor quality jpeg images and try to compress them further, but you can't blame the bad results this will produce on the new format technology.
Will you have the fastest ship in the delta quadrant, be trying to go straight home as quickly as you can, and yet still keep running into the same enemies each time you make a stop?
Actually, that's not the case at all. If it were then there could be no objection to cameras in the court room. The truth is that the public record is far from complete. You can learn a lot by witnessing the process first hand and seeing so much that never makes it into the public record. The irony of a judge ruling that the motorist had a right to video the police officer because he had was preforming as a public official, and not having his ruling filmed should not be missed by anyone.
Couldn't you have used just the Unit System the whole world uses???
By that logic they should have also written it in Chinese, the most popular language on the planet. However, /. is U.S. centric and so using miles is perfectly rational. It might have been better to not give a measurement is meters. but those of us in the U.S. are not as up tight about that sort of thing as some people. Now excuse me while I open another 2 litter Coke.
The /. summary reads " It's still twenty million miles away so if it hits us, it won't happen until 2098". This statement seems to imply that because it is 20 million miles away it will take 88 years to get here. That implies a very poor understanding of basic math and science skills. 20 million miles is just not that much in terms of astronomy. The earth is about 93 million miles from the sun, and covers a distance of over 300 million miles each year as it falls around the sun. 20 million miles would not take this rock 88 years to reach us, the real issue is that its orbit and the earth's orbit don't intersect until 2098. Until then the rock may be closer or farther than 20 million miles from us, the 20 million is just a distance it was away from us at one time.
Rather than read about the judge's amazingly sane and rational decision, I would have preferred to see the video of him handing down the ruling, but I guess cameras are not allowed in the court room.
Wow! What a concept. Promote your site by doing something that may cause the majority of people who might be interested in it to delete their bookmarks and never come back.
The above was a sincere and honest response to the post. It is echoed by many other posts here. With a subject like that and the dark history of MJ, it should be expected. It strikes me as a shame that there are so many fans of drug abuse, child molestation and buying of white babies with mod points willing to abuse them by silencing a view that they don't agree with by labeling it the posting of a troll, but I guess they couldn't say much to defend an alternative view instead.
A MMO based on abusing drugs, molesting little kids and buying white babies to claim they are your own? Just doesn't seen right.
I use a local "desktop" firewall on all of my systems, which are behind a NAT router firewall. Mainly because I expect the firewalls to do different things.
I expect the router to keep unexpected things from getting to my local systems. I mostly want the local firewall so that applications that should not be sending stuff out of my computer don't. And so that I can disable an application from phoning home if I catch it. A nice secondary benefit is that my local firewall keeps tab on the md5 of all local applications, and warns me if any application is changed unexpectedly before it let it send data out of the computer.
Of course, a local firewall can be bypassed just by enlisting the browser (or other application that can be expected to have access to the internet). A clever program could sneak a small but critical amount of data out of your system just by passing a specially constructed URL to the browser. I don't know of any good way to completely stop this without crippling normal use of the browser, but one thing that I have done that helps me is to tell my firewalls that IE is not allowed to access the network at all. I never use IE, (anyone who does is clearly not interested in security), so it has no business sending data on the network, and blocking it only makes sense. A server firewall has no concept of what application originated the traffic, it just sees packets, so it can't do the same things that a local firewall can.
I also block all normal IRC traffic both at the local firewall and the router. I never use IRC, and it is a common mechanism for botnet control. So it just makes sense to not leave this hole open if I know I'm not going to be using it.
Oh come on, no way is this going to happen or work. It's not like the plane only holds the passenger compartment, and I can't see going to the effort to give the passengers a good view of the luggage, extra cargo, and distressed pets, which will all block the view, as well as letting the passengers see the condition of the wiring, landing gear and other controls. And even if the airlines really wanted to do this and found a way for all of the extra stuff to not block the view, the thickness of the curved hull would so drastically distort the view that it would not be worth doing.
It would be far simpler with today's technology to give everyone individual steerable, zoomable access to video cameras. I don't expect that to happen, and I don't believe that Airbus will ever build Wonder Woman's plane, the passenger version.
Aside from a mention in the New York Times, that's is the first time the word appears in print.
So the point is to celebrate the second time that the term was used?
Oh, I'm feeling so sorry for Ed Begley, Jr.'s neighbors right now.