This has nothing to do with it being a stolen laptop or not (and it most likely is not stolen). He just wants to buy an accessory, so it is not like he is taking it in for warranty repairs.
Alienware are not the Police: it is not their job to decide what is stolen and what isn't. If you read the blog, they haven't directly said that the laptop is stolen. They are, however, treating him like a criminal because he is not the person who brought the laptop from them in the first place.
His point is that he isn't having anything serviced and he is not expecting Alienware to do anything except sell him an accessory. To use your analogy more correctly: it is like taking a second hand car to the dealer to buy a mirror accessory, and then having the dealer look under your bonnet for the VIN and tell you that you can't buy it because you didn't buy the car from them.
You give the impression that there are fixed "Rules of Engagement" specified somewhere that are always applied to everything. Actually, Rules of Engagement are very flexible and tailored to specific theaters, missions and combatants.
You do clarify that Rules of Engagement are tailored to a situation, but there are rules set out by NATO, the UN, the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Rules of Engagement do exist. At the end of the day, the people who push the button or pull the trigger do have to have justification, and can be held accountable, even if it is a "target of opportunity".
Sure, war is war and the Rules of Engagement aren't the first things on a soldier's mind when stuff is going to hell around them. But the context of STRATCOM's statement isn't a combat situation. They have plenty of time to consider their actions under the Rules of Engagement. Perhaps this is why they they seek to deem independant hackers as 'enemy combatants', so they can sidestep the NATO and UN rules and the Geneva and Hague Conventions like they have with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Fortunately, you don't run the world.
And I am glad I don't run the world. That really wold be an awful job.
Those in charge of US CyberCommand have stated for a long time now they want the ability to a physical attack in response to a cyber attack.
They state that they want the Law of Armed Conflict to apply. This would also mean that the Rules of Engagement would apply as well. Generally, the Rules of Engagement state that they are only allowed to use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of death or injury. That means they won't be dropping bombs on hackers' houses anytime soon. But then the US military does have a record or "shoot first, ask questions later".
What they want is for a cyber attack ot be deemed an act of War. This is hardly going to stop attacks from China (where a large proportion of the attacks currently originate). Needless to say that sending a cruise missile into mainland China to take out a hacker's house would be a very bad move for the US in the current climate.
At least in the UK they tell you you're being monitered. In the US, you get monitored by the NSA. (They still haven't stopped the warrantless wiretaps.) If you're communicating with someone overseas, ECHELON is watching you.
While Intel do hold key x86 related patents, they aren't the only ones with patents in that area. Nvidia have entered into a patent sharing agreement with Via (and most likely sharing their x86 technology), and on top of that, they have also licensed all patents and patent applications from Transmeta.
Perhaps they could be making GPGPU that with a translation layer for x86 instructions, like the Transmeta Crusoe did in VLIW, or maybe they are enhancing a Via Nano CPU design with on die GPU (rather like they did with the Tergra ARM11 chip). Either way this won't be a desktop CPU, and it won't be serious competition for Intel, but could be targeted at the growing netbook market.
Intel could step in and try to block them, but they have lost against Via and Transmeta in the past, and they would also put themselves in a difficult situation, since they are being watched in the US, EU and Asia for antitrust violations. This would look quite bad for them.
Some kids will have no respect for the value of the things and there will be many many breakages and the kids will even become targets for theft.
Furthermore, if these kids will then own the laptops then there is very little you can do (legally) to stop them from putting whatever software on it they want (unless you can get the kids and their parents to sign a contract as a condition of receiveing the laptop).
If the school district retained ownership, only then can you mandate what can and cannot be put on them.
What you really need to do is lock down networks. I really doubt that kids need access to the internet in the classroom from their laptops all the time. By all means have a wireless network for each classroom, but don't directly connect it to the internet (give the teacher the tools to allow limited access for a limited time if internet access is needed). Even then you should filter traffic and restrict sites.
Some people have commented that locking down access breeds resentment, and you should just trust the students not abuse the system. I agree that locking it down will breed some resentment, but only if they have been given full access in the first place only to have it taken away later. If you lock it down to start with, and then progressively give more access you will actually build trust on both sides.
As a side note, I don't see why you would go with MacBooks. As I pointed out before, there will be many many breakages - broken screens in particular (yes, I speak from experience). The end of year repair bill from Apple will be staggering. Your district really should go for something cheaper, like Eee PCs.
I just hope that your district isn't pouring money into this project in the hopes of improving literacy, numeracy and the performance of the district in standardised tests, becuse it really won't. Laptops are a nice tool, and it is good to get the students using them, but they are not a replacement for good teachers and core education programmes. The students will be eager to start with, but the novelty of having a laptop will wear off very quickly.
By 11 I was already doing some reasonably complicated things with BASIC and LOGO. The computers I had access to back then were very simple (BBC Micro Model B - 8bit CPU and 32K of RAM). Yes, I'm that old. Looking back, I don't consider myself gifted.
As these kids are gifted, some may have already done some programming before. You'll need to cater to everyone. For those that are just beginning, I do suggest BASIC and LOGO. LOGO has an immediate and simple visual correlation between program entered and what is displayed as an output. BASIC teaches fundamental concepts, like variables, conditional statements, loops and subroutines without having to get into more complicated subjects like header files, linking and compiling.
For those a little more advanced, show them Java or C and be sure to explain their diffrences from BASIC. It may even be a good goal to get everyone to this level, so they can understand there are many different languages.
For those who are supremely gifted, show them some assembly demos, and teach them some assembler. Kids of that level may end up teaching you, but at least you can show them a challenge.
The problem with many gifted kids is that of you don't keep them challenged, you'll lose them. Your problem will be keeping them all challenged while catering to each of their levels of knowledge.
As others have pointed out, IBM didn't just boost the RoadRunner in response to Cray's claim of being the fastest: they have been quietly adding to it all along.
To me, the Cray Jaguar is actually two machines: an XT4 cluster (which was around 400 Teraflop/s back in June) and the XT5 cluster. Cray completely redesigned the switching architecture, the memory management, and the cooling to create the XT5. The XT5 really is a completely different machine. Cray seem determined to take #1 spot, but combining the XT4 and XT5 clusters for a better overall measurement has the disadvantage of making the XT5 look less efficient.
IBM has retained the crown with a system that has fewer processors and uses half the energy. By comparison, the Jaguar is a lumbering beast that uses far more power and requires far more real estate. However, if you look at the performance of the XT5 alone, those figures get more competetive.
In the June 2008 Top 500 list, the Cray XT Jaguar was number 5 with 205 teraflop/s. By comparison, the number 1 was an IBM Roadrunner Bladecentre, with a mix of 6,562 Dual Core Opterons and 12,240 PowerXCell8i Cell Processors, housed in 278 cabinets. That got up to 1.026 petaflop/s.
In June the Jaguar had 30,000 Quad Core Opterons, and now it has 45,000. The previous machine was an XT4, but the most recent update shows that 200 XT5 cabinets have been added to it. I have been unable to find how many cabinets the Jaguar has in total, but it seems that in June it had 313 (30,000 Opterons and 96 Opterons per cabinet). To me, the Jaguar seems to be two machines: the Cray XT4, and the Cray XT5. I'm also wary how increasing the number of processors by 50% yeilds an 800% performance increase. I'm going to wait until the official figures have been released on the 18th, when the next Top500 list comes out.
If the Jaguar has had a performance increase, then I'd say the IBM machine would have had one too. It seems Cray are just fighting a war of attrition, trying to win back the supercomputing crown they held for so long (in the company's previous incarnations). They seem to be throwing processors at the problem. Yes there is more to supercomputers than processors (interconnects, switching, and memory management design are also vital ), but a 45,000 processor beast taking up 500+ cabinets is not a very elegant solution compared to a machine with 18,800 processors taking up only 278 cabinets (and arguably using far less power).
I wonder where you are getting your dates from. ACTA hasn't been finalised, and the NZ Ministry of Economic Development has stated they will make the decision to join the proposed agreement once the public has commented on the final version.
Despite the secrecy surrounding ACTA, the NZ government does have a process that it has to abide by to make ACTA legally binding. Violate any one of those steps, and it could void the enforcement of ACTA in NZ.
Judith Tizard was hoping to push this through by the end of the year, but it seems ACTA negotiations haven't been speedy. I haven't seen anything which suggests that ACTA would be ready by then, or that the government have voted on it before it was dissolved.
It is possible that you're thinking of the Copyright (New Technologies) Ammendment Bill, the Copyright (Artists' Resale Right) Amendment Bill, or the Protocol ammending the TRIPS Agreement, all of which are something entirely different.
As a theatre lighting designer, I'm not skeptical at all. In fact I have made use of this very phenomena.
As part of a workshop for a contemporary dance show I set up a bunch of tightly focussed beams and pools of light and then had the performers navigate around the space with their eyes closed. In a suitably darkened space, you can feel when the light hits you. I'd say the sesitivity is more the infrared portion of the spectrum, but it does work.
Tesla presented his wireless power system to the 1893 World's Fair (he actually first demonstrated it back in 1891). His presentation was basically identical to what Intel have demonstrated over 100 years later.
Can you tell me excatly how Intel's system works? I doubt it. Can you tell me exactly how Tesla's system worked? I doubt it. Then how can you make such comparisons?
I have to wonder, when Intel tries to patent this, if Tesla's patents would be considered prior art.;)
"fully paid-up license to all of Transmeta's patents and patent applications"
This means that nVidia now have licenses for Transmeta's code morphing and VLIW technologies. This is more important than the LongRun and LongRun2, as nVidia could use this technology to emulate x86 on a GPU (or multiple GPUs with SLI). This is the same tech that Intel was forced to license back in 2007 when they realised they weren't going to win a patent war against Transmeta.
"transfer of certain Transmeta advanced power management and other computing technologies"
This seems to mean that as well as licensing, Transmeta have sold patents to nVidia. This could be an important weapon should Intel come knocking in nVidia's door.
Actually if you look back in news a few months you'll find that nVidia and Via entered into a technology sharing partnership. If nVidia require a license to produce an x86 chip (and that is something I highly doubt), then Via's patent umberella should protect them from Intel's flying monkeys.;)
As far as lawsuits go, I can't see Intel opening up on nVidia either way. They already have enough problems in the US and EU with anti-trust threats: a lawsuit against a new player would be just be more evidence against them. Secondly, nVidia are a major producer of chipsets for Intel, and a lawsuit could see them dump support for Intel (and either solely support AMD or leave the chipset business altogether).
nVidia haven't been faring too well lately, and entering into this venture would have been well researched. I imagine that patents and licensing would have been one of the first issues to get sorted.
Personally, I don't think nVidia would be capable of entering the market with x86 chips for high-end desktops. However, I do suspect that we'll see a system-on-a-chip based on Via's Nano, with an on-chip GPU (with PhysX and SLI capability), northbridge and southbridge. It would be rather like nVidia's Tegra is to ARM11. I'm guessing that such a processor wouldn't be destined for the desktop, but rather the portable market.
I'm surprised this was left unnoticed and was not shut down.
I believe most of the projections were handled by HighEnd Systems DL2s and DL3s. Essentially a projector on a moving yoke, with a few extra features. Each DL2 or DL3 has its own built-in media server running Win XP Embedded.
Even if the built-in media server fell over (which is what this looked like), there is still DMX control over the unit. Pan, tilt, focus and more importantly beam blanking and projector power are still controllable. It would have been easy to shut the faulty unit down and still carry on with the show (and yes, I do work with this kind of gear).
On this scale of event, they would have had multiple operators dedicated to watching over particular areas in case of such a fault. It looks like someone wasn't paying attention.
I don't believe free speech protections cover harassment. Lori Drew created the account with the specific intent of causing emotional harm to Megan Meier. Now, she had no way of knowing that Megan Meier was going to commit suicide, but that is beside the point: there was still the intent to cause harm.
Free speech protects many things, but it does not provide a defense against harassment, and it does not provide a defense against a criminal act where there is shown to be malicious intent.
While they can argue that what was said between Lori Drew and Megan Meier may have been covered by free speech, the fact that Lori Drew created a false identity (an identity crafted to appeal to Megan) shows that she knew her actions were morally wrong, if not legally wrong.
Free speech may allow people to create online an alter ego or speak under a pseudonym, but I think that it can easily be proven that "Josh Evans" created by Lori Drew was neither an alter ego nor a pseudonym: 'he' was created to appeal as much as possible to Megan Meier.
Free speech also does not change the fact that Lori Drew acted in breach of MySpace's conditions of use, and therefore was in breach of contract.
While I respect the EFF and others for protecting free speech (even though I am not a US citizen), I do not believe that free speech laws should cover actions like this. Sure, this is not an isolated case and harassment like this is widespread in the Internet, but that does not mean that it is right.
This is not really a hologram, but a slight variation of the Pepper's Ghost illusion developed in the 1860s. About the only new thing is that the projection is reflected off a plastic foil instead of a glass or perspex panel. It is a nice illusion, but not a 3D hologram.
This is an interesting theatrical trick, but isn't real because the guy can't actually see the images in front of him that he is supposedly manipulating. If you look carefully, the guy is looking down the whole time, at the projection screen hidden out of view down the front of the stage. He can't see the images in front of him, as they are reflected off the foil and only apparent to the audience.
Guestural interfaces aren't new either, and there has been a fair amount of R&D into them in recent years (well before Minority Report). Because the guy can't see what he is manipulating in relation to his hand position, I am inclined to think this is choreographed movements. Of course he could have a monitor, but that makes it no different than the greenscreens used by weathermen.
If you have megawatts of power travelling down these thin wires with 0 ohms of resistance and the temperature rises above the superconducting threshold (for whatever reason), then resistance of the wire will suddenly jump. When that happens, there will be a huge energy release, depending on the resistance jump and the ammount of power travelling along the line at the time. At best, the superconductor would just be destroyed, and worst case the energy is released explosively. As I understand, the resistance of superconductors above their threshold temperature is actually pretty high.
Read the case. She deliberately violated MySpace's terms and conditions. The Feds are treating those terms and conditions as a Contract, since she had to agree to them to create the account. Contractual law is not vague, and to consider that a contractual relationship existed between MySpace and Lori Drew (even under a false name) is not huge leap legally.
The terms and conditions are available, and you must click that you have read and agree to those terms and conditions as part of sign up. How exactly is that lack of notice?
This is hardly a denial of due process. Lori Drew has been indicted and will face a trial where she can argue her case. How exactly is that denial of due process? If she had been locked away with no access to lawyers then that would be a denial of due process.
Not enough notice? How? Before you sign into MySpace and any other website there are terms and conditions that you have to agree to. Those terms and conditions do spell out the law. It is not like robbery and burgulary suspects or drug dealers can get off by claiming there is no notice of what the law actually is. Ignorace is, quite simply, no defense.
Read the case. It becomes quite apparent that Lori Drew created the account with the specific intent of harrassing Megan Meier, who then comitted suicide. The right to free speech does not cover the committing of an illegal act.
Laws like this have been in the pipeline for a long time, but they aren't going to go out after everyone using a fake name. The problem is too widespread. What they will go after people for (like in this case) is if the fake name is created with the intent of causing harm, or committing an illegal act.
As I said before, the sentence for these crimes may be small in relation to what Lori Drew did, but it does then open her up to a wrongful death lawsuit, in addition to giving the feds some handy case law.
Hook up the battery to an inverter (to make 115V AC)
Plug light into inverter.
Why not skip this bit, and use a lower-voltage bulb? An LED array might be best, for the very low power needed. Because DC requires much thicker copper cabling, and the losses are greater over longer distances. If you don't mind paying extra for the thicker copper (and given the international price of copper this may be quite alot), then DC is a good choice. You will need better switchgear too, since the AC voltage and current ratings for switches will always be higher than the DC voltage and current ratings. DC wiring is hugely different to AC for house wiring, and DC presents more hazards than AC does. One of the reasons AC won over DC.
Ok. This is just a District Court, and with Judges like Kollar-Kotelly, it was bound to happen. This is just the beginning of an appeals process that will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, as with so many cases that appeal to the Supreme Court, a final judgement could take years by which time there will be a new President and the records (if any still exist) will be long gone.
This may seem like the odds are stacked in Intel's favour, and I'ms sure they thing so too, by not allowing anyone else near the host controller spec. Despite this, I think that the other board members would fully realise that Intel is a minority against the combined force of AMD, Via, SiS and Nvidia in production of chipsets for desktop PCs.
The USB-IF board knows the danger of losing control of the standard if it is forked, so I'm sure they will in no uncertain terms tell Intel to invite AMD, Via, SiS and Nvidia to the party. Of couse Intel could ignore this and keep going, but it risks finding its spec left out of the USB 3.0 standard
Slashdot Mirror
This has nothing to do with it being a stolen laptop or not (and it most likely is not stolen). He just wants to buy an accessory, so it is not like he is taking it in for warranty repairs.
Alienware are not the Police: it is not their job to decide what is stolen and what isn't. If you read the blog, they haven't directly said that the laptop is stolen. They are, however, treating him like a criminal because he is not the person who brought the laptop from them in the first place.
His point is that he isn't having anything serviced and he is not expecting Alienware to do anything except sell him an accessory. To use your analogy more correctly: it is like taking a second hand car to the dealer to buy a mirror accessory, and then having the dealer look under your bonnet for the VIN and tell you that you can't buy it because you didn't buy the car from them.
You give the impression that there are fixed "Rules of Engagement" specified somewhere that are always applied to everything. Actually, Rules of Engagement are very flexible and tailored to specific theaters, missions and combatants.
You do clarify that Rules of Engagement are tailored to a situation, but there are rules set out by NATO, the UN, the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Rules of Engagement do exist. At the end of the day, the people who push the button or pull the trigger do have to have justification, and can be held accountable, even if it is a "target of opportunity".
Sure, war is war and the Rules of Engagement aren't the first things on a soldier's mind when stuff is going to hell around them. But the context of STRATCOM's statement isn't a combat situation. They have plenty of time to consider their actions under the Rules of Engagement. Perhaps this is why they they seek to deem independant hackers as 'enemy combatants', so they can sidestep the NATO and UN rules and the Geneva and Hague Conventions like they have with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Fortunately, you don't run the world.
And I am glad I don't run the world. That really wold be an awful job.
Those in charge of US CyberCommand have stated for a long time now they want the ability to a physical attack in response to a cyber attack.
They state that they want the Law of Armed Conflict to apply. This would also mean that the Rules of Engagement would apply as well. Generally, the Rules of Engagement state that they are only allowed to use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of death or injury. That means they won't be dropping bombs on hackers' houses anytime soon. But then the US military does have a record or "shoot first, ask questions later".
What they want is for a cyber attack ot be deemed an act of War. This is hardly going to stop attacks from China (where a large proportion of the attacks currently originate). Needless to say that sending a cruise missile into mainland China to take out a hacker's house would be a very bad move for the US in the current climate.
Actually, they can make you turn over an encryption key.
They can also detain you without charges, especially if they deem you an enemy combatant.
At least in the UK they tell you you're being monitered. In the US, you get monitored by the NSA. (They still haven't stopped the warrantless wiretaps.) If you're communicating with someone overseas, ECHELON is watching you.
Perhaps they could be making GPGPU that with a translation layer for x86 instructions, like the Transmeta Crusoe did in VLIW, or maybe they are enhancing a Via Nano CPU design with on die GPU (rather like they did with the Tergra ARM11 chip). Either way this won't be a desktop CPU, and it won't be serious competition for Intel, but could be targeted at the growing netbook market.
Intel could step in and try to block them, but they have lost against Via and Transmeta in the past, and they would also put themselves in a difficult situation, since they are being watched in the US, EU and Asia for antitrust violations. This would look quite bad for them.
...and this is exactly why Sony has shot itself in the foor by removing backwards compatibility from the PS3.
If the school district retained ownership, only then can you mandate what can and cannot be put on them.
What you really need to do is lock down networks. I really doubt that kids need access to the internet in the classroom from their laptops all the time. By all means have a wireless network for each classroom, but don't directly connect it to the internet (give the teacher the tools to allow limited access for a limited time if internet access is needed). Even then you should filter traffic and restrict sites.
Some people have commented that locking down access breeds resentment, and you should just trust the students not abuse the system. I agree that locking it down will breed some resentment, but only if they have been given full access in the first place only to have it taken away later. If you lock it down to start with, and then progressively give more access you will actually build trust on both sides.
As a side note, I don't see why you would go with MacBooks. As I pointed out before, there will be many many breakages - broken screens in particular (yes, I speak from experience). The end of year repair bill from Apple will be staggering. Your district really should go for something cheaper, like Eee PCs.
I just hope that your district isn't pouring money into this project in the hopes of improving literacy, numeracy and the performance of the district in standardised tests, becuse it really won't. Laptops are a nice tool, and it is good to get the students using them, but they are not a replacement for good teachers and core education programmes. The students will be eager to start with, but the novelty of having a laptop will wear off very quickly.
As these kids are gifted, some may have already done some programming before. You'll need to cater to everyone. For those that are just beginning, I do suggest BASIC and LOGO. LOGO has an immediate and simple visual correlation between program entered and what is displayed as an output. BASIC teaches fundamental concepts, like variables, conditional statements, loops and subroutines without having to get into more complicated subjects like header files, linking and compiling.
For those a little more advanced, show them Java or C and be sure to explain their diffrences from BASIC. It may even be a good goal to get everyone to this level, so they can understand there are many different languages.
For those who are supremely gifted, show them some assembly demos, and teach them some assembler. Kids of that level may end up teaching you, but at least you can show them a challenge.
The problem with many gifted kids is that of you don't keep them challenged, you'll lose them. Your problem will be keeping them all challenged while catering to each of their levels of knowledge.
To me, the Cray Jaguar is actually two machines: an XT4 cluster (which was around 400 Teraflop/s back in June) and the XT5 cluster. Cray completely redesigned the switching architecture, the memory management, and the cooling to create the XT5. The XT5 really is a completely different machine. Cray seem determined to take #1 spot, but combining the XT4 and XT5 clusters for a better overall measurement has the disadvantage of making the XT5 look less efficient.
IBM has retained the crown with a system that has fewer processors and uses half the energy. By comparison, the Jaguar is a lumbering beast that uses far more power and requires far more real estate. However, if you look at the performance of the XT5 alone, those figures get more competetive.
In June the Jaguar had 30,000 Quad Core Opterons, and now it has 45,000. The previous machine was an XT4, but the most recent update shows that 200 XT5 cabinets have been added to it. I have been unable to find how many cabinets the Jaguar has in total, but it seems that in June it had 313 (30,000 Opterons and 96 Opterons per cabinet). To me, the Jaguar seems to be two machines: the Cray XT4, and the Cray XT5. I'm also wary how increasing the number of processors by 50% yeilds an 800% performance increase. I'm going to wait until the official figures have been released on the 18th, when the next Top500 list comes out.
If the Jaguar has had a performance increase, then I'd say the IBM machine would have had one too. It seems Cray are just fighting a war of attrition, trying to win back the supercomputing crown they held for so long (in the company's previous incarnations). They seem to be throwing processors at the problem. Yes there is more to supercomputers than processors (interconnects, switching, and memory management design are also vital ), but a 45,000 processor beast taking up 500+ cabinets is not a very elegant solution compared to a machine with 18,800 processors taking up only 278 cabinets (and arguably using far less power).
I wonder where you are getting your dates from. ACTA hasn't been finalised, and the NZ Ministry of Economic Development has stated they will make the decision to join the proposed agreement once the public has commented on the final version.
MED's ACTA FAQ
Despite the secrecy surrounding ACTA, the NZ government does have a process that it has to abide by to make ACTA legally binding. Violate any one of those steps, and it could void the enforcement of ACTA in NZ.
Judith Tizard was hoping to push this through by the end of the year, but it seems ACTA negotiations haven't been speedy. I haven't seen anything which suggests that ACTA would be ready by then, or that the government have voted on it before it was dissolved.
It is possible that you're thinking of the Copyright (New Technologies) Ammendment Bill, the Copyright (Artists' Resale Right) Amendment Bill, or the Protocol ammending the TRIPS Agreement, all of which are something entirely different.
As a theatre lighting designer, I'm not skeptical at all. In fact I have made use of this very phenomena.
As part of a workshop for a contemporary dance show I set up a bunch of tightly focussed beams and pools of light and then had the performers navigate around the space with their eyes closed. In a suitably darkened space, you can feel when the light hits you. I'd say the sesitivity is more the infrared portion of the spectrum, but it does work.
Tesla presented his wireless power system to the 1893 World's Fair (he actually first demonstrated it back in 1891). His presentation was basically identical to what Intel have demonstrated over 100 years later.
Can you tell me excatly how Intel's system works? I doubt it. Can you tell me exactly how Tesla's system worked? I doubt it. Then how can you make such comparisons?
I have to wonder, when Intel tries to patent this, if Tesla's patents would be considered prior art. ;)
"fully paid-up license to all of Transmeta's patents and patent applications"
This means that nVidia now have licenses for Transmeta's code morphing and VLIW technologies. This is more important than the LongRun and LongRun2, as nVidia could use this technology to emulate x86 on a GPU (or multiple GPUs with SLI). This is the same tech that Intel was forced to license back in 2007 when they realised they weren't going to win a patent war against Transmeta.
"transfer of certain Transmeta advanced power management and other computing technologies"
This seems to mean that as well as licensing, Transmeta have sold patents to nVidia. This could be an important weapon should Intel come knocking in nVidia's door.
As far as lawsuits go, I can't see Intel opening up on nVidia either way. They already have enough problems in the US and EU with anti-trust threats: a lawsuit against a new player would be just be more evidence against them. Secondly, nVidia are a major producer of chipsets for Intel, and a lawsuit could see them dump support for Intel (and either solely support AMD or leave the chipset business altogether).
nVidia haven't been faring too well lately, and entering into this venture would have been well researched. I imagine that patents and licensing would have been one of the first issues to get sorted.
Personally, I don't think nVidia would be capable of entering the market with x86 chips for high-end desktops. However, I do suspect that we'll see a system-on-a-chip based on Via's Nano, with an on-chip GPU (with PhysX and SLI capability), northbridge and southbridge. It would be rather like nVidia's Tegra is to ARM11. I'm guessing that such a processor wouldn't be destined for the desktop, but rather the portable market.
I believe most of the projections were handled by HighEnd Systems DL2s and DL3s. Essentially a projector on a moving yoke, with a few extra features. Each DL2 or DL3 has its own built-in media server running Win XP Embedded.
Even if the built-in media server fell over (which is what this looked like), there is still DMX control over the unit. Pan, tilt, focus and more importantly beam blanking and projector power are still controllable. It would have been easy to shut the faulty unit down and still carry on with the show (and yes, I do work with this kind of gear).
On this scale of event, they would have had multiple operators dedicated to watching over particular areas in case of such a fault. It looks like someone wasn't paying attention.
Free speech protects many things, but it does not provide a defense against harassment, and it does not provide a defense against a criminal act where there is shown to be malicious intent.
While they can argue that what was said between Lori Drew and Megan Meier may have been covered by free speech, the fact that Lori Drew created a false identity (an identity crafted to appeal to Megan) shows that she knew her actions were morally wrong, if not legally wrong.
Free speech may allow people to create online an alter ego or speak under a pseudonym, but I think that it can easily be proven that "Josh Evans" created by Lori Drew was neither an alter ego nor a pseudonym: 'he' was created to appeal as much as possible to Megan Meier.
Free speech also does not change the fact that Lori Drew acted in breach of MySpace's conditions of use, and therefore was in breach of contract.
While I respect the EFF and others for protecting free speech (even though I am not a US citizen), I do not believe that free speech laws should cover actions like this. Sure, this is not an isolated case and harassment like this is widespread in the Internet, but that does not mean that it is right.
This is an interesting theatrical trick, but isn't real because the guy can't actually see the images in front of him that he is supposedly manipulating. If you look carefully, the guy is looking down the whole time, at the projection screen hidden out of view down the front of the stage. He can't see the images in front of him, as they are reflected off the foil and only apparent to the audience.
Guestural interfaces aren't new either, and there has been a fair amount of R&D into them in recent years (well before Minority Report). Because the guy can't see what he is manipulating in relation to his hand position, I am inclined to think this is choreographed movements. Of course he could have a monitor, but that makes it no different than the greenscreens used by weathermen.
If you have megawatts of power travelling down these thin wires with 0 ohms of resistance and the temperature rises above the superconducting threshold (for whatever reason), then resistance of the wire will suddenly jump. When that happens, there will be a huge energy release, depending on the resistance jump and the ammount of power travelling along the line at the time. At best, the superconductor would just be destroyed, and worst case the energy is released explosively. As I understand, the resistance of superconductors above their threshold temperature is actually pretty high.
The terms and conditions are available, and you must click that you have read and agree to those terms and conditions as part of sign up. How exactly is that lack of notice?
Not enough notice? How? Before you sign into MySpace and any other website there are terms and conditions that you have to agree to. Those terms and conditions do spell out the law. It is not like robbery and burgulary suspects or drug dealers can get off by claiming there is no notice of what the law actually is. Ignorace is, quite simply, no defense.
Read the case. It becomes quite apparent that Lori Drew created the account with the specific intent of harrassing Megan Meier, who then comitted suicide. The right to free speech does not cover the committing of an illegal act.
Laws like this have been in the pipeline for a long time, but they aren't going to go out after everyone using a fake name. The problem is too widespread. What they will go after people for (like in this case) is if the fake name is created with the intent of causing harm, or committing an illegal act.
As I said before, the sentence for these crimes may be small in relation to what Lori Drew did, but it does then open her up to a wrongful death lawsuit, in addition to giving the feds some handy case law.
Hook up the battery to an inverter (to make 115V AC)
Plug light into inverter.
Why not skip this bit, and use a lower-voltage bulb? An LED array might be best, for the very low power needed. Because DC requires much thicker copper cabling, and the losses are greater over longer distances. If you don't mind paying extra for the thicker copper (and given the international price of copper this may be quite alot), then DC is a good choice. You will need better switchgear too, since the AC voltage and current ratings for switches will always be higher than the DC voltage and current ratings. DC wiring is hugely different to AC for house wiring, and DC presents more hazards than AC does. One of the reasons AC won over DC.Unfortunately, as with so many cases that appeal to the Supreme Court, a final judgement could take years by which time there will be a new President and the records (if any still exist) will be long gone.
This may seem like the odds are stacked in Intel's favour, and I'ms sure they thing so too, by not allowing anyone else near the host controller spec. Despite this, I think that the other board members would fully realise that Intel is a minority against the combined force of AMD, Via, SiS and Nvidia in production of chipsets for desktop PCs.
The USB-IF board knows the danger of losing control of the standard if it is forked, so I'm sure they will in no uncertain terms tell Intel to invite AMD, Via, SiS and Nvidia to the party. Of couse Intel could ignore this and keep going, but it risks finding its spec left out of the USB 3.0 standard