These devices are claimed to operate at close to 95% efficiency. Even if that wasn't the case, efficiency doesn't seem like that big a deal when you consider the device of the same size and weight of a battery will provide more than ten times the energy.
Difference is either a) The exploit is announced by a credible soruce, or even the software vendor (Microsoft in those cases) or b) A Proof of Concept demonstration of the falw is provided.
Neither of which apply to this situation. An announcement from a crerdible source or a demonstration would clear things right up. Even if you consider whitedust.net to be a good source, the flaw was not found by them and they only reference a ZDNet article which contains slightly more information but not enough to really confirm anything. The people who found the exploit are deliberately keeping it secret and therefore will not produce a PoC. =Smidge=
Properly made GIF images are almost always smaller than PNG images of comparable bit-depth and features, except PNG does not support animation. If you have a simple image with only a few colors, GIF is still the best choice because it is small and fully supported by everything.
Professional web designers should use the best tool for the job, not what's hip and trendy. =Smidge=
Inbound port 80 is blocked, yes. I have yet to see a domestic ISP service that doesn't do that. If you want to run a public web server, either use a different port or buy their business class service.
Not that I outright reject your accusations, but other than blocking ports 80 and 25 do you have any reference for your claims? At all? I'm genuinely curious about Verizon's capping policy with their FiOS service, but I've read probably over a hundred reviews from customers and nobody has said anything about it.
If you have a solution in search of a problem, then clearly there is no problem, and you are fixing something that isn't broken -- which invariably ends up breaking it. So why do they want fix something that isn't broken? Because they can make money fixing it once it is.
What you are advocating is essentially the ability to legally tax the quality of service as well as performance. Sure, they'll sell you that 30Mbps connection, but if you want that speed for anything other than HTTP traffic you'll have to buy our upgrade package too! =Smidge=
Re:These are $24 apice, not $16?
on
USB Batteries
·
· Score: 1
FTA: "£12.99 for two"
£12.99 GBP = US$24.55
So they're US$12.28 each. Still like 8 times the price of normal NiMH batteries (4 for ~$6 = $1.50 ea.), but a bit better. =Smidge=
Any electric motor can conceivably be used as an electric generator with little modification, or in most cases no modification at all. Considering how small we can make electric motors I don't think this will be the issue.
Somehow I doubt the laptops are responsible for anything on the mission beyond multimedia applications and the crew's personal use. Not exactly what would be considered "mission software".
The shuttle itself uses a bunch of 32bit AP-101 systems, which I doubt would be running Windows even if they were capable. =Smidge=
I doubt NASA would never use Windows anything for an actual mission, and that's not a money issue.
The cost savings probably coem from the fact that, with Linux, they have an operating system that they can fully customize to their specific needs (thus Windows would not be an option). Traditionally all of their mission software was 100% home-rolled. I suspect the reduced manpower to build the software is where the savings come in. =Smidge=
and you'd pretty much have to devote every piece of arable land in the United States to growing it to get enough for the US's vehicle fleet.
This would be true only if foodcrops such as corn or soybean were used for fuel production. Since we can make fuel out of almost anything, many things being better for production than high-oil corn and soybean, the amount of land required is not only less than whatever halfassed math that claim is based on, but includes lots of land that is not really suitable for growing food.
IIRC the larger problem is supplying water for these crops. This can be solved by growing stuff that doesn't need much water, shifting some production to saltwater tolerant plants (algae) or maybe using greywater for irrigation since it's not for food anyway. =Smidge=
Except that it's NOT fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the naturally occuring hydrocarbons thosands or millions of years old (Hence the "fossil" part).
These fuels would be made from "new growth" biomass, which can include things like animal and human effluent, scrap paper and wood (recycling paper is HORRID for the environment) and if some thermal treatments are used, even scrap plastics. Not only are you creating fuel, you are eliminating landfill mass.
And since this is all "new growth" material, it is carbon neutral. At the end fo the day, all of the carbon you released from burning the fuel came from biomass which ultimately came from plants which ultimately absorbed that carbon from the air. Since no fuel production method extract 100% of the carbon from the biomass, you could even make a claim that there is a net decrease in atmospheric carbon.
It's pretty much triple-win except the economics of it all are still not very convincing. =Smidge=
Gee golly! If only there was a fuel cell technology that could use something other than pure hydrogen. Or if it must be hydrogen, maybe if there was a way to use the otherwise dense hydrogen-storing capability of readily available and stable hydrocarbon fuels as a source... hmmmmmm...
But no, it's much too much fun to just fly off the handle isn't it?
Preemptive rebuttal: Don't bitch about temperatures and scalability of the above references. That's what research is for. Point is "hydrogen" is too much of a buzzword and there are plenty of promising technologies out there. =Smidge=
There is currently one pilot plant that I know of (which is also mentioned in the article). It converts turkey offal into oil.
The two biggest reasons why this has not become more popular are 1) Until recently the cost of the biomass (which has other uses and must be purchased at a market price) was too high to produce a fuel that was competitive with petrolium, and 2) Until recently (~10 years or so) the process wasn't very efficient anyway, and not viable. But as petrolium oil continues to get more expensive, this is IMHO one of the best technologies to fill in the gap -- the other being biofuels (Biodiesel and bioalcohol). =Smidge=
Oil & coal happen to be pretty decent storage mechanisms--relatively little waste while in storage, but somewhat difficult to recharge and creating it is quite wasteful.
Wasteful compared to what? With a variety of thermal chemical conversion processes, it is quite possible to convert biomass into crude oil quickly (hours) and efficiently - 85% or more of the potential energy in the biomass comes out as useful fuel, with the remainder going to sustain the process and to losses. =Smidge=
Diesel fuel has a hydrogen density of about 0.23 gm/cm^3, is a stable liquid at room temperature, and is noncorrosive (both Sodium Borohydride and Ammonia are corrosive). Biodiesel is roughly the same properties with the added benefit of being sulphur-free, cleaner burning (it's a naturally "oxygenated" fuel), biodegradable and renewable.
The best, though, is that you can use any mixture of the two in existing vehicles with zero modifications* using the existing fuel storage, distribution and dispensing infrastructure.
(* Rich Biodiesel blends may require additives or fuel preheaters for cold weather climates to prevent clouding.) =Smidge=
I'm pretty sure one of the reasons they genetically modify crops is to improve insect and herbicide resistance, so they can reduce or eliminate the need for these chemicals... so I'm not quite sure where that "FACT" comes from. At best, this argument is poorly worded.
May I suggest a slight alteration to that statement that actually makes it a fact?
However, it is FACT that the increased use of herbicides and pesticides associated with non-GM crops is a threat to human health and increases the incidence of many serious diseases.
That also makes the "However" make sense, since it now contrasts the previous statement. =Smidge=
Ever hear of a checksum? Change a vote, checksum doesn't match.
It does if you update the checksum while you're at it. If you have the ability to change the data so easily (and based on the reports we've all seen, it IS that easy), then the checksum can't be much harder to deal with.
It is true that anyone can write a paper ballot, but that introduces people into the activity. The more people that get involved, the more likely it is someone will either screw up and expose the operation, be an undercover investigator, blow the whistle (before, during or after the fact), or try to blackmail you to keep your fraud secret.
It takes only ONE person to fraud an *entire* election if done electronically with no verifiable records. We're not talking about hacking into the systems or modding the hardware, we're talking about literally "flip this switch" or "plug this in". Huge difference there.
The whole idea of electronic voting is to minimize the involvement of human hands and eyes. as a consequence, you have to manipulate far fewer people to alter the election, so security measures need to be premium quality. The problem here is that Diebold machines seem to not just lack proper security, but almost seem to have been deliberately designed to allow easy, unauthorized access. =Smidge=
Based on the description of the method, it is the physical characteristic fo the hardware itself that provides the "fignerprint" - not software. It it not something that you "generate" - is it based on the characteristics of the signal itself and not the information carried by the signal.
Paper ballots are certaintly not perfect. They can easily be altered, lost or destroyed... but so can electronic records and the physical media they are stored on.
However, changing one vote on a paper ballot requires modifying or replacing a sheet of paper. Changing 100,000 votes requires changing or modifying 100,000 sheets of paper. Changing one electronic vote requires a few keystrokes. Changing 100,000 electronic votes requries... a kew keystrokes.
Even better, to alter a paper ballot you need physical access to the ballot. To change an electronic vote you do not necessarily need physical access to the computer on which is resides.
100,000 paper ballots also takes up a bit of volume, os it is not something that can be easily concealed without having a lot of people in on the plot, and would take some time to prepare, swap and dispose of the evidence. A memory card holding 100,000 electronic votes can be slipped into a shirt pocket, can be prepared in minutes, and all traces of the original data can be destroyed almost instantly.
Lastly, anyone can read and verify a paper ballot. Only people with the proper equipment, software, and technical knowledge (and cryptographic keys, if any are used) will be able to look at and verify the electronic votes. =Smidge=
Perhaps you should write a letter to the local cable TV service and tell them that. After all, if they really are concerned with making customers happy, your request does not sound like that big a burden to their system.
And frankly, I'd like that option too.
Since Verizon has been adding cable TV to their FioS service, it is looking like a much better alternative to Cablevision/Optimum Online. Verison's phone and internet is already available on FioS in my area, and as soon as TV is there I'm probably going to switch. Hooray for competition! =Smidge=
Actually, no. The only rason there is energy in the water for gravity to "release" is because the sunlight put it there by moving the water to a higher potential. Gravity itself is not an energy source.
Even so, that's still not tidal because it's not the moon's gravity. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
These devices are claimed to operate at close to 95% efficiency. Even if that wasn't the case, efficiency doesn't seem like that big a deal when you consider the device of the same size and weight of a battery will provide more than ten times the energy.
=Smidge=
Complete with Do-It-Yourself instructions for prostate drainage!
=Smidge=
Difference is either a) The exploit is announced by a credible soruce, or even the software vendor (Microsoft in those cases) or b) A Proof of Concept demonstration of the falw is provided.
Neither of which apply to this situation. An announcement from a crerdible source or a demonstration would clear things right up. Even if you consider whitedust.net to be a good source, the flaw was not found by them and they only reference a ZDNet article which contains slightly more information but not enough to really confirm anything. The people who found the exploit are deliberately keeping it secret and therefore will not produce a PoC.
=Smidge=
Properly made GIF images are almost always smaller than PNG images of comparable bit-depth and features, except PNG does not support animation. If you have a simple image with only a few colors, GIF is still the best choice because it is small and fully supported by everything.
Professional web designers should use the best tool for the job, not what's hip and trendy.
=Smidge=
Inbound port 80 is blocked, yes. I have yet to see a domestic ISP service that doesn't do that. If you want to run a public web server, either use a different port or buy their business class service.
=Smidge=
Not that I outright reject your accusations, but other than blocking ports 80 and 25 do you have any reference for your claims? At all? I'm genuinely curious about Verizon's capping policy with their FiOS service, but I've read probably over a hundred reviews from customers and nobody has said anything about it.
=Smidge=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of _the_past_1000_years#General_techniques
It probably took you longer to post that question than it took me to find that answer.
=Smidge=
If you have a solution in search of a problem, then clearly there is no problem, and you are fixing something that isn't broken -- which invariably ends up breaking it. So why do they want fix something that isn't broken? Because they can make money fixing it once it is.
What you are advocating is essentially the ability to legally tax the quality of service as well as performance. Sure, they'll sell you that 30Mbps connection, but if you want that speed for anything other than HTTP traffic you'll have to buy our upgrade package too!
=Smidge=
FTA: "£12.99 for two"
£12.99 GBP = US$24.55
So they're US$12.28 each. Still like 8 times the price of normal NiMH batteries (4 for ~$6 = $1.50 ea.), but a bit better.
=Smidge=
Any electric motor can conceivably be used as an electric generator with little modification, or in most cases no modification at all. Considering how small we can make electric motors I don't think this will be the issue.
=Smidge=
Somehow I doubt the laptops are responsible for anything on the mission beyond multimedia applications and the crew's personal use. Not exactly what would be considered "mission software".
The shuttle itself uses a bunch of 32bit AP-101 systems, which I doubt would be running Windows even if they were capable.
=Smidge=
I doubt NASA would never use Windows anything for an actual mission, and that's not a money issue.
The cost savings probably coem from the fact that, with Linux, they have an operating system that they can fully customize to their specific needs (thus Windows would not be an option). Traditionally all of their mission software was 100% home-rolled. I suspect the reduced manpower to build the software is where the savings come in.
=Smidge=
This would be true only if foodcrops such as corn or soybean were used for fuel production. Since we can make fuel out of almost anything, many things being better for production than high-oil corn and soybean, the amount of land required is not only less than whatever halfassed math that claim is based on, but includes lots of land that is not really suitable for growing food.
IIRC the larger problem is supplying water for these crops. This can be solved by growing stuff that doesn't need much water, shifting some production to saltwater tolerant plants (algae) or maybe using greywater for irrigation since it's not for food anyway.
=Smidge=
Except that it's NOT fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the naturally occuring hydrocarbons thosands or millions of years old (Hence the "fossil" part).
These fuels would be made from "new growth" biomass, which can include things like animal and human effluent, scrap paper and wood (recycling paper is HORRID for the environment) and if some thermal treatments are used, even scrap plastics. Not only are you creating fuel, you are eliminating landfill mass.
And since this is all "new growth" material, it is carbon neutral. At the end fo the day, all of the carbon you released from burning the fuel came from biomass which ultimately came from plants which ultimately absorbed that carbon from the air. Since no fuel production method extract 100% of the carbon from the biomass, you could even make a claim that there is a net decrease in atmospheric carbon.
It's pretty much triple-win except the economics of it all are still not very convincing.
=Smidge=
Gee golly! If only there was a fuel cell technology that could use something other than pure hydrogen. Or if it must be hydrogen, maybe if there was a way to use the otherwise dense hydrogen-storing capability of readily available and stable hydrocarbon fuels as a source... hmmmmmm...
But no, it's much too much fun to just fly off the handle isn't it?
Preemptive rebuttal: Don't bitch about temperatures and scalability of the above references. That's what research is for. Point is "hydrogen" is too much of a buzzword and there are plenty of promising technologies out there.
=Smidge=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerizat ion
There is currently one pilot plant that I know of (which is also mentioned in the article). It converts turkey offal into oil.
The two biggest reasons why this has not become more popular are 1) Until recently the cost of the biomass (which has other uses and must be purchased at a market price) was too high to produce a fuel that was competitive with petrolium, and 2) Until recently (~10 years or so) the process wasn't very efficient anyway, and not viable. But as petrolium oil continues to get more expensive, this is IMHO one of the best technologies to fill in the gap -- the other being biofuels (Biodiesel and bioalcohol).
=Smidge=
Wasteful compared to what? With a variety of thermal chemical conversion processes, it is quite possible to convert biomass into crude oil quickly (hours) and efficiently - 85% or more of the potential energy in the biomass comes out as useful fuel, with the remainder going to sustain the process and to losses.
=Smidge=
Diesel fuel has a hydrogen density of about 0.23 gm/cm^3, is a stable liquid at room temperature, and is noncorrosive (both Sodium Borohydride and Ammonia are corrosive). Biodiesel is roughly the same properties with the added benefit of being sulphur-free, cleaner burning (it's a naturally "oxygenated" fuel), biodegradable and renewable.
The best, though, is that you can use any mixture of the two in existing vehicles with zero modifications* using the existing fuel storage, distribution and dispensing infrastructure.
(* Rich Biodiesel blends may require additives or fuel preheaters for cold weather climates to prevent clouding.)
=Smidge=
May I suggest a slight alteration to that statement that actually makes it a fact?
That also makes the "However" make sense, since it now contrasts the previous statement.
=Smidge=
Ever hear of a checksum? Change a vote, checksum doesn't match.
It does if you update the checksum while you're at it. If you have the ability to change the data so easily (and based on the reports we've all seen, it IS that easy), then the checksum can't be much harder to deal with.
It is true that anyone can write a paper ballot, but that introduces people into the activity. The more people that get involved, the more likely it is someone will either screw up and expose the operation, be an undercover investigator, blow the whistle (before, during or after the fact), or try to blackmail you to keep your fraud secret.
It takes only ONE person to fraud an *entire* election if done electronically with no verifiable records. We're not talking about hacking into the systems or modding the hardware, we're talking about literally "flip this switch" or "plug this in". Huge difference there.
The whole idea of electronic voting is to minimize the involvement of human hands and eyes. as a consequence, you have to manipulate far fewer people to alter the election, so security measures need to be premium quality. The problem here is that Diebold machines seem to not just lack proper security, but almost seem to have been deliberately designed to allow easy, unauthorized access.
=Smidge=
Based on the description of the method, it is the physical characteristic fo the hardware itself that provides the "fignerprint" - not software. It it not something that you "generate" - is it based on the characteristics of the signal itself and not the information carried by the signal.
=Smidge=
Paper ballots are certaintly not perfect. They can easily be altered, lost or destroyed... but so can electronic records and the physical media they are stored on.
However, changing one vote on a paper ballot requires modifying or replacing a sheet of paper. Changing 100,000 votes requires changing or modifying 100,000 sheets of paper. Changing one electronic vote requires a few keystrokes. Changing 100,000 electronic votes requries... a kew keystrokes.
Even better, to alter a paper ballot you need physical access to the ballot. To change an electronic vote you do not necessarily need physical access to the computer on which is resides.
100,000 paper ballots also takes up a bit of volume, os it is not something that can be easily concealed without having a lot of people in on the plot, and would take some time to prepare, swap and dispose of the evidence. A memory card holding 100,000 electronic votes can be slipped into a shirt pocket, can be prepared in minutes, and all traces of the original data can be destroyed almost instantly.
Lastly, anyone can read and verify a paper ballot. Only people with the proper equipment, software, and technical knowledge (and cryptographic keys, if any are used) will be able to look at and verify the electronic votes.
=Smidge=
Perhaps you should write a letter to the local cable TV service and tell them that. After all, if they really are concerned with making customers happy, your request does not sound like that big a burden to their system.
And frankly, I'd like that option too.
Since Verizon has been adding cable TV to their FioS service, it is looking like a much better alternative to Cablevision/Optimum Online. Verison's phone and internet is already available on FioS in my area, and as soon as TV is there I'm probably going to switch. Hooray for competition!
=Smidge=
I'm sure they can borrow a few of the RIAA lawyers to make their case. They won't even have to figure out which employees downloaded it!
=Smidge=
Actually, no. The only rason there is energy in the water for gravity to "release" is because the sunlight put it there by moving the water to a higher potential. Gravity itself is not an energy source.
Even so, that's still not tidal because it's not the moon's gravity.
=Smidge=