So how much energy is required to generate the steam that produces the hydrogen? Do you get enough H2 to make it worth the cost and effort?
It's like an all-electric car... sure it uses no gas but that power has to come from somewhere to begin with. You've only moved the problem to someone else's back yard.
At least with Biodiesel you get out more energy than you put in to make the conversion (the balance of the energy comes from the sun, which the plants have collected and turned into the raw oil). =Smidge=
First, if behavior is determined by chemistry that does not make it predictable any more so than "free will" can be predictable. Indeed there are some people who are quite good at determining how humans will behave in certain situations already, and yet that doesn't seem to contradict free will.
Second, the last part of your comment assumes that the idea of "free will" can never be proven or dispelled because free will exists. This is called a circular argument. (In other words, that logic is a crock of shit.)
Personally, I feel it doesn't matter if free will exists or if it really is just a chemical soup in my noggin shooting random energy pulses through my brain. If there is free will, great. If it's all chemistry, then at least it is complex enough that the behavior suits the situation (within reason) and thus fulfills the requirement for surviving.
Besides, if the chemistry in your head just makes it feel like you have free will, how is that really different that Genuine Free Will(tm)? That chemistry is still unique to YOU, and does nothing to destroy your individual capacity for creativity and logic... however miniscule that capacity may be. =Smidge=
These people -- the Piraha-- allegedly have no creation myths nor any generational memory beyond their immediate forebears: parents and grandparents. Its bizarre.
Maybe that's why. With no history that needs controlling, there's no need to try and use complex language to twist meanings. =Smidge=
I'm surprised nobody's made the "reduced language = reduced ability to form mental concepts" link with Orwell's '1984'. This seems like some strong evidence that it might actually work.
If you hack the thing, you still have to buy, so they're going to make a profit off of you. Not as much as the sheeple who'll just drop the thing in the slot, but a bucks a buck.
So how much does it cost to produce the camera if they still make an acceptable profit selling them for $20?
Their business model relies on people returning the cameras for recycling. I'm sure they accounted for a loss of devices over time (mostly people losing/breaking them through general clumsiness rather than hacking), but overall they are hoping a camera will get recyled 10 times or more so they can make their money back on the hardware plus profit. =Smidge=
What exactly is a "web based desktop"? Am I supposed to send messages halfway around the planet just to rename a file on my local HD? Would I have to upload and then download files from the 'net if I wanted to move them from one disk to another? What if I need special software for my (insert obscure/obsolete computer-interfaced consumer electronic device here)?
WorldOS was, if I recall, an idea not for an OS as such but a "central" bank of applications that were non platform specific (in Java) and distributed via a P2P system similar to Gnutella. That's all fine and good but without local storage it's kinda pointless.
If the "OS" is web-based, what happens when I press my computer's power button in the morning? How can I access the web without loading network interface drivers, protocol wrappers and a rendering program? Wouldn't that sorta require code specifically tailored to *my* computer's architecture, code designed to handle files on a local storage devices, code to manage user interface IO, and code to manage memory? Isn't that what an "Operating System" is?
So there is still a need for a traditional OS, and there eems to be little reason for a "web-based desktop" unless I have misunderstood the concept. If I have then please explain it to me. =Smidge=
You're right... I automatically used 32 byte output * 8 bits/byte = 256 bits, but it doesn't use the full range for each byte. I stand corrected! =Smdige=
Well the problem is you have a finite number of bits and an theoretically infinate number of data sets. Logically speaking, if you had a MD5 hash (256 bits, or 2^256 unique hashes), then you can only have 2^256 unique input-output pairs. If you have (2^256)+1 unique inputs you are guaranteed to have one collision. Fortunately that's quite a lot of data sets, so the chances of having two inputs that give the same output is small - but not small enough to be considered secure anymore. So far nobody has found a pair of data sets but it won't be long before someone does.
But generating the original data is essentially impossible, because there are theoretically infinate inputs. To use the Jpeg example, you might be "lucky" and find a 2MB image tht has the same hash as the original 85MB one, or you might find a 400MB one that has a matching hash. Without any other information about it you have no way of knowing if it's the real image or not... and this assumes you even know to look for a JPG image. If you're "really lucky" the image might have a hash identical to that of the license plate number on your car, your pet's name, or the Paris Hilton sex tape in XViD format. There is just no way to tell. =Smidge=
Honestly, I can't see how it would be possible to reliably reconstruct the data that produced the hash. If there are multiple data sets then it's still impossible to figure out which is the original, though you may have narrowed it down.
The REAL problem here is that hashes are used to store passwords and other security sensitive data. It is still impossible to recover the original data, but if a method is known that produces collisions then it would be possible to find an equivalent data set to give the same resulting hash. In other words, you may not have the exact same key but you can make one of your own that will work anyway.
One possible (and temporary) solution would be to salt the data somehow. This adds an extra layer of security because the hash you are looking at is a an unknown password AND an unknown data set which you (theoretically) have no access to. You can generate a data set that produces the same hash, but when submitting that data set it will be salted to generate a new hash that won't work. Think of it as a single math equation with two unknowns.
This fails, of course, if you manage to get a password and it's corresponding hash. Then you only have one unknown (the salt). =Smidge=
Two-rotor designs are more efficient that single-rotor + tail designs. In a nutshell, when you have two rotors they both provide lifting force, but a tail rotor provides no lift and simply robs the "engine" of power.
They are also much less stable and more complex (read: expensive and prone to failure) than two rotor designs. I have no idea why they are the most popular type.
The biggest problem with your proposal is it depends on the standard helecopter design to be efficient enough that each person can produce enough power to lift their own weight plus a little bit.
And a gearing system is useless. You lose power and add weight. It makes much more sense to design the rotors and a fixed gearing system to be reasonable for human power.
Making the blades coaxial makes a lot of sense from a weight perspective as well: There it virtually no structure required to hold the blades apart. The counter-rotating action cancels out the torques so the rest of the craft doesn't spin. As a bonus you can get extra lift out of two main rotors.
Two possible improvements for this design:
First, redesign the rotors to eleminate the airfoil at the center. Because the speed is so low there it does nothing, so eliminate it and save the weight. Concentrate the airfoil at the edges where you have the velocity to generate the most lift.
Second, maybe they can consider stay-cables to limit the sag in the rotors, or at least the top rotor. Hold them up out of the way... =Smidge=
You might save on cost, and it might be marginally lighter, but you won't save on power. The reason being that if you replace the steering wheel with a joystick, that's the ONLY thing you'll be changing. You will still need the steeling linkage, power assist cylinder (moreso than ever, because the driver now provides 0% of the mechanical force required to turn the wheels - so it would probably use more power), and all of the bits that go along with it.
However, using a joystick as a control is a BAD idea, above any beyond the problems you mentioned. Most cars have steering ratios of 12:1 to 14:1. Meaning if the front wheels could turn 360 degrees you would have to turn the steering wheel 12-14 times. This gives you very good control for when you want to turn just a little bit, like on a highway that goes around a bend. Now imagine that with a joystick, and how easy it would be to push the stick a little too far and end up swerving out of control. At most you would only have to tilt the stick 35-40 degrees to go full turn in either direction. =Smidge=
2) The bot can search the page content and compare the keywords in the meta tag to the words in the page. One would think that a page with "watermelon" in the meta tag would at least mention it in the page itself...
3) Use statistical analysis on the page content. The more often the keyword appears in the page the stronger it's relation probably is.
4) Some pages have dozens and dozens of keywords in the meta tag. That's probably excessive... though to be fair you could adjust the allowed number of keywords based on the amount of content (within reason)
5) It's possible, within reason, to determine the physical location of a server if it's DNS information is properly maintained... and I think there are already laws about that.
6) Damned if I know, but all of this is strictly academic anyway, because you're assuming the police will be proactive in enforcing this law. As wikdwarlock said, it's just an extra "gotcha" when they catch you for something else. =Smidge=
The difference is, I'm not the one hacking the system. Therefore the person who has hacked the system should be a bit more responsible in putting out the information.
In other words, not release it at all?
Let's ban chemistry books, then, because the informatioon in there can be used to develop lethal toxins and explosives. Those publishers shold be a bit more responsible in putting out the information.
Don't be an asshat. Information is information. He is not advokating it's use for illegal/immoral activities (quite the opposite, actually). If you choose to apply this knowledge to break the law, then you are responsible. Don't blame the publisher of the book if someone uses the information to build a bomb and don't blame the maintainer of the website if you use the information to commit fraud. =Smidge=
Oh, the components are actually very easy to remove. Much easier wth surface mount than with the old solder-through types. Just get yourself a good paint scraper or a wide chisle and you'll have a nice clean PCB in a few minutes!
I'd also think they could set up some kind of seawater-electrolite voltaic cell to suppliment the battery system. Might be able to extend it's life by a few days (providing periodic "resting" to recharge) =Smidge=
You realise that "dial a phone" is a generic term right?
Let me simplify: Put the receiver to your head and enter the your destination's information. This process can either be vocally (tell the operator who you'd like to talk to) or by entering a number or speed-dial code by whatever mechanism your phone uses.
But the actual process of picking up the phone and talking has not changed in any significant way since the day it was invented. That is the analog of the parent's argument: "search engines haven't changed because you still type in a search phrase and get a list of results."
Of course it's obvious to most people that both telephones and search engines have evolved since their conception. That's innovation. =Smidge=
Lycos is totally broken. Altavista is horrid. Yahoo takes almost ten times as long to return any results. Dogpile is noticably slower than google but but by much. Hotbot isd also pretty good. MSN is fast enough where I can't preceive any difference in result time. Google is almost instantaneous. (For reference, I did muiltiple searches on each to make sure images and the like were cached)
I am questioning that. It was good at the beginning of Google, but now its targetted by everyone to screw up the results. Look up any product name and review. 50% of the results have no review of the product but just people selling it.
Let's say I was interested in getting central AC system for my house and I'm interested in some product details. I'd search for, as an example, "Carrier central AC". Comparing all the search engines listed above... First links returned:
I skipped the ads/"sponsored links" if it was obvious it was a payed listing. I dunno, seems pretty accurate to me. Especially considering the first non-sponsored link for MSN, Google's largest competitor, had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wanted.
How is a web search engine "robust"? It doesn't crash?
Not so much the search engine itself, but the features. If I set a filter, for example, there are fewer unwanted results that get through. Their local search also works amazingly well. I don't suppose you've tried any of their topic-specific searches either? =Smidge=
In that case, there hasn't been much innovation at all anywhere if you really think about it.
Innovation in the automotive industry? Turn the key to start, gear shift to select direction, gas pedal to go and brake pedal to stop. With the exception of automatic transmissions, this hasn't changed in a hundred years.
Innovation in telecommunications? Pick up the phone, dial a number. This also hasn't changed in a hundred years.
It's not just coming up with new ideas, it's also about finding better ways to do things. Cars have power steeling and power/ABS brakes, air bags, climate control and more efficient engines. Telephones have all sorts of features and are much more reliable. Google's search engine is faster, more accurate and has more robust features that the competitor's engines. That's still innovation any way you slice it. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
So how much energy is required to generate the steam that produces the hydrogen? Do you get enough H2 to make it worth the cost and effort?
It's like an all-electric car... sure it uses no gas but that power has to come from somewhere to begin with. You've only moved the problem to someone else's back yard.
At least with Biodiesel you get out more energy than you put in to make the conversion (the balance of the energy comes from the sun, which the plants have collected and turned into the raw oil).
=Smidge=
Two problems with that:
First, if behavior is determined by chemistry that does not make it predictable any more so than "free will" can be predictable. Indeed there are some people who are quite good at determining how humans will behave in certain situations already, and yet that doesn't seem to contradict free will.
Second, the last part of your comment assumes that the idea of "free will" can never be proven or dispelled because free will exists. This is called a circular argument. (In other words, that logic is a crock of shit.)
Personally, I feel it doesn't matter if free will exists or if it really is just a chemical soup in my noggin shooting random energy pulses through my brain. If there is free will, great. If it's all chemistry, then at least it is complex enough that the behavior suits the situation (within reason) and thus fulfills the requirement for surviving.
Besides, if the chemistry in your head just makes it feel like you have free will, how is that really different that Genuine Free Will(tm)? That chemistry is still unique to YOU, and does nothing to destroy your individual capacity for creativity and logic... however miniscule that capacity may be.
=Smidge=
These people -- the Piraha-- allegedly have no creation myths nor any generational memory beyond their immediate forebears: parents and grandparents. Its bizarre.
Maybe that's why. With no history that needs controlling, there's no need to try and use complex language to twist meanings.
=Smidge=
I'm surprised nobody's made the "reduced language = reduced ability to form mental concepts" link with Orwell's '1984'. This seems like some strong evidence that it might actually work.
=Smidge=
If you hack the thing, you still have to buy, so they're going to make a profit off of you. Not as much as the sheeple who'll just drop the thing in the slot, but a bucks a buck.
So how much does it cost to produce the camera if they still make an acceptable profit selling them for $20?
Their business model relies on people returning the cameras for recycling. I'm sure they accounted for a loss of devices over time (mostly people losing/breaking them through general clumsiness rather than hacking), but overall they are hoping a camera will get recyled 10 times or more so they can make their money back on the hardware plus profit.
=Smidge=
What exactly is a "web based desktop"? Am I supposed to send messages halfway around the planet just to rename a file on my local HD? Would I have to upload and then download files from the 'net if I wanted to move them from one disk to another? What if I need special software for my (insert obscure/obsolete computer-interfaced consumer electronic device here)?
WorldOS was, if I recall, an idea not for an OS as such but a "central" bank of applications that were non platform specific (in Java) and distributed via a P2P system similar to Gnutella. That's all fine and good but without local storage it's kinda pointless.
If the "OS" is web-based, what happens when I press my computer's power button in the morning? How can I access the web without loading network interface drivers, protocol wrappers and a rendering program? Wouldn't that sorta require code specifically tailored to *my* computer's architecture, code designed to handle files on a local storage devices, code to manage user interface IO, and code to manage memory? Isn't that what an "Operating System" is?
So there is still a need for a traditional OS, and there eems to be little reason for a "web-based desktop" unless I have misunderstood the concept. If I have then please explain it to me.
=Smidge=
Super beer! Man, for once all this science mumbojumbo actually pays off!
=Smidge=
You're right... I automatically used 32 byte output * 8 bits/byte = 256 bits, but it doesn't use the full range for each byte. I stand corrected!
=Smdige=
Well the problem is you have a finite number of bits and an theoretically infinate number of data sets. Logically speaking, if you had a MD5 hash (256 bits, or 2^256 unique hashes), then you can only have 2^256 unique input-output pairs. If you have (2^256)+1 unique inputs you are guaranteed to have one collision. Fortunately that's quite a lot of data sets, so the chances of having two inputs that give the same output is small - but not small enough to be considered secure anymore. So far nobody has found a pair of data sets but it won't be long before someone does.
But generating the original data is essentially impossible, because there are theoretically infinate inputs. To use the Jpeg example, you might be "lucky" and find a 2MB image tht has the same hash as the original 85MB one, or you might find a 400MB one that has a matching hash. Without any other information about it you have no way of knowing if it's the real image or not... and this assumes you even know to look for a JPG image. If you're "really lucky" the image might have a hash identical to that of the license plate number on your car, your pet's name, or the Paris Hilton sex tape in XViD format. There is just no way to tell.
=Smidge=
Honestly, I can't see how it would be possible to reliably reconstruct the data that produced the hash. If there are multiple data sets then it's still impossible to figure out which is the original, though you may have narrowed it down.
The REAL problem here is that hashes are used to store passwords and other security sensitive data. It is still impossible to recover the original data, but if a method is known that produces collisions then it would be possible to find an equivalent data set to give the same resulting hash. In other words, you may not have the exact same key but you can make one of your own that will work anyway.
One possible (and temporary) solution would be to salt the data somehow. This adds an extra layer of security because the hash you are looking at is a an unknown password AND an unknown data set which you (theoretically) have no access to. You can generate a data set that produces the same hash, but when submitting that data set it will be salted to generate a new hash that won't work. Think of it as a single math equation with two unknowns.
This fails, of course, if you manage to get a password and it's corresponding hash. Then you only have one unknown (the salt).
=Smidge=
I suppose people using "/." have been doing this all along, else it would be "?."
=Smidge=
Two-rotor designs are more efficient that single-rotor + tail designs. In a nutshell, when you have two rotors they both provide lifting force, but a tail rotor provides no lift and simply robs the "engine" of power.
They are also much less stable and more complex (read: expensive and prone to failure) than two rotor designs. I have no idea why they are the most popular type.
The biggest problem with your proposal is it depends on the standard helecopter design to be efficient enough that each person can produce enough power to lift their own weight plus a little bit.
And a gearing system is useless. You lose power and add weight. It makes much more sense to design the rotors and a fixed gearing system to be reasonable for human power.
Making the blades coaxial makes a lot of sense from a weight perspective as well: There it virtually no structure required to hold the blades apart. The counter-rotating action cancels out the torques so the rest of the craft doesn't spin. As a bonus you can get extra lift out of two main rotors.
Two possible improvements for this design:
First, redesign the rotors to eleminate the airfoil at the center. Because the speed is so low there it does nothing, so eliminate it and save the weight. Concentrate the airfoil at the edges where you have the velocity to generate the most lift.
Second, maybe they can consider stay-cables to limit the sag in the rotors, or at least the top rotor. Hold them up out of the way...
=Smidge=
You might save on cost, and it might be marginally lighter, but you won't save on power. The reason being that if you replace the steering wheel with a joystick, that's the ONLY thing you'll be changing. You will still need the steeling linkage, power assist cylinder (moreso than ever, because the driver now provides 0% of the mechanical force required to turn the wheels - so it would probably use more power), and all of the bits that go along with it.
However, using a joystick as a control is a BAD idea, above any beyond the problems you mentioned. Most cars have steering ratios of 12:1 to 14:1. Meaning if the front wheels could turn 360 degrees you would have to turn the steering wheel 12-14 times. This gives you very good control for when you want to turn just a little bit, like on a highway that goes around a bend. Now imagine that with a joystick, and how easy it would be to push the stick a little too far and end up swerving out of control. At most you would only have to tilt the stick 35-40 degrees to go full turn in either direction.
=Smidge=
1) A webcrawler bot
2) The bot can search the page content and compare the keywords in the meta tag to the words in the page. One would think that a page with "watermelon" in the meta tag would at least mention it in the page itself...
3) Use statistical analysis on the page content. The more often the keyword appears in the page the stronger it's relation probably is.
4) Some pages have dozens and dozens of keywords in the meta tag. That's probably excessive... though to be fair you could adjust the allowed number of keywords based on the amount of content (within reason)
5) It's possible, within reason, to determine the physical location of a server if it's DNS information is properly maintained... and I think there are already laws about that.
6) Damned if I know, but all of this is strictly academic anyway, because you're assuming the police will be proactive in enforcing this law. As wikdwarlock said, it's just an extra "gotcha" when they catch you for something else.
=Smidge=
The difference is, I'm not the one hacking the system. Therefore the person who has hacked the system should be a bit more responsible in putting out the information.
In other words, not release it at all?
Let's ban chemistry books, then, because the informatioon in there can be used to develop lethal toxins and explosives. Those publishers shold be a bit more responsible in putting out the information.
Don't be an asshat. Information is information. He is not advokating it's use for illegal/immoral activities (quite the opposite, actually). If you choose to apply this knowledge to break the law, then you are responsible. Don't blame the publisher of the book if someone uses the information to build a bomb and don't blame the maintainer of the website if you use the information to commit fraud.
=Smidge=
Like a seemingly unimportant 216 digit number...
(Obscure?)
=Smidge=
No it's not. The gas is still air (a mix of Nitrogen, Oxygen, C02 and a few others...) there's just less of it.
=Smidge=
What about a vacuum then? That would still lower the total density, making it more boyant in air.
Of course, the weight of the structure required to maintain the shape would probably kill that idea...
=Smidge=
To borrow from a certain demotivational poster...
"If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."
=Smidge=
Oh, the components are actually very easy to remove. Much easier wth surface mount than with the old solder-through types. Just get yourself a good paint scraper or a wide chisle and you'll have a nice clean PCB in a few minutes!
=Smidge=
I'd also think they could set up some kind of seawater-electrolite voltaic cell to suppliment the battery system. Might be able to extend it's life by a few days (providing periodic "resting" to recharge)
=Smidge=
upon what data is this guy basing his numbers which magically add up to an even 50 50?
Simple! Either something bad will happen, or it won't. Two mutually exclusive results each being equally likely to occur. 50/50!
=Smidge=
You realise that "dial a phone" is a generic term right?
Let me simplify: Put the receiver to your head and enter the your destination's information. This process can either be vocally (tell the operator who you'd like to talk to) or by entering a number or speed-dial code by whatever mechanism your phone uses.
But the actual process of picking up the phone and talking has not changed in any significant way since the day it was invented. That is the analog of the parent's argument: "search engines haven't changed because you still type in a search phrase and get a list of results."
Of course it's obvious to most people that both telephones and search engines have evolved since their conception. That's innovation.
=Smidge=
What would you consider a slow web search engine?
Lycos is totally broken. Altavista is horrid. Yahoo takes almost ten times as long to return any results. Dogpile is noticably slower than google but but by much. Hotbot isd also pretty good. MSN is fast enough where I can't preceive any difference in result time. Google is almost instantaneous. (For reference, I did muiltiple searches on each to make sure images and the like were cached)
I am questioning that. It was good at the beginning of Google, but now its targetted by everyone to screw up the results. Look up any product name and review. 50% of the results have no review of the product but just people selling it.
Let's say I was interested in getting central AC system for my house and I'm interested in some product details. I'd search for, as an example, "Carrier central AC". Comparing all the search engines listed above... First links returned:
Google: www.carrier.com
Yahoo: eBay search listing
Altavista: www.centralstatesbus.com
MSN: www.centralstatesbus.com
Dogpile: www.carrier.com
HotBot: eBay search listing
I skipped the ads/"sponsored links" if it was obvious it was a payed listing. I dunno, seems pretty accurate to me. Especially considering the first non-sponsored link for MSN, Google's largest competitor, had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wanted.
How is a web search engine "robust"? It doesn't crash?
Not so much the search engine itself, but the features. If I set a filter, for example, there are fewer unwanted results that get through. Their local search also works amazingly well. I don't suppose you've tried any of their topic-specific searches either?
=Smidge=
In that case, there hasn't been much innovation at all anywhere if you really think about it.
Innovation in the automotive industry? Turn the key to start, gear shift to select direction, gas pedal to go and brake pedal to stop. With the exception of automatic transmissions, this hasn't changed in a hundred years.
Innovation in telecommunications? Pick up the phone, dial a number. This also hasn't changed in a hundred years.
It's not just coming up with new ideas, it's also about finding better ways to do things. Cars have power steeling and power/ABS brakes, air bags, climate control and more efficient engines. Telephones have all sorts of features and are much more reliable. Google's search engine is faster, more accurate and has more robust features that the competitor's engines. That's still innovation any way you slice it.
=Smidge=