Don't get me wrong, I'm all for installing internet service in schools - but you know sometimes you have to stop and think about what they really need it for, and what it will actually be used for, and if what you're paying for is what you need.
Do you really need 5 computers in every classroom, from Kindergarten to Grade 12 (On top of multiple, dedicated 20 or 30 machine labs PLUS library and office stations)? Do they all need internet access? =Smidge=
Each vehicle is followed by a manned one. Specifically, one of the team members and a contest official.
The team member has a "big read button" - which is a mandatory safety device - that is the vehicle is in danger of or actually goes off course can be used to shut it down.
Then you can get disqualified for it, upon the disgression of the cheif judge.
Also interesting that the processes of ethanol and corn oil (biodiesel) production from corn don't seem to interfere with eachother, and are somewhat complimentary: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/prod_process.html
I think the original intent of that comment was something like:
-Creating ethanol fuel requires 30% more energy to to make than you get from burning it. Therefore, for every 100 joules of energy from the you put into the Corn->Mash->Ethanol->Fuel->Energy cycle , you only get 75 out. A "net loss"
-Fuel cells don't "burn" alcohol like an IC engine does, and therefore the process may be more efficient. If using fuel cells is good enough to offset the 30% loss realized with conventional burning, then you would have a "net gain" form the cycle.
This only works if the "free" solar energy is not part of the "energy in" equation. Of course you're not going to get more energy out than was put in as a whole, but will you be able to convert the solar energy into electricity efficiently enough to recover the extra energy you had to put in to make the conversion?
Frankly, I'd like to see where that 30% figure came from. I don't believe that takes solar energy into account... in which case it would be much easier to overcome.
Although personally, I still think you can get more energy out of the corn as biodiesel than as ethanol. Any idea what the yeild is? Say, gallons of ethanol per bushel? =Smidge=
But on the other hand, it would become somewhat easier to defend since the target would be that much smaller.
Built an ancology and bristle the outside with Phalanx batteries. No missile or unauthorized plane would get within a mile of the place! (literally) =Smidge=
That's another way to do it. The net result is that the center of mass for the whole thing stays in geo-sync orbit.
To the best of my knowledge, "Highlift Systems" (Being the most visible group working on this concept) does not use the two-ended-ribbon system you describe. All depends on who you talk to. =Smidge=
As I recall, the satellite would would move out and away from teh planet as the cable was lowered, so the center of mass for the whole thing stayed at GCO. Thus, it wouldn't fall. Once the calbe is strong enough, a transport car (whose mass would be really smal compared to te satellite) can ride up and down without upsetting the whole system. =Smidge=
Just send them an ACME Do-It-Yourself Space Elevator Kit!
One complete space elevator tailored for Martian use. Pack it up, send it over, put it into geo-stationary orbit where you want it, and drop anchor. This can probablty all be done remotely.
If I'm not mistaken, that's pretty much how they (currently) plan to build on for Earth: Unreel a starter cable from above and anchor it. Only difference is the crawlers that go up and down the starter cable to reinforce it would have to start at the top. =Smidge=
And my point was that the likelyhood of cracking it is so astoundingly small it's not worth even trying. At that point they might as well just try to DoS you, in which case the usual protective measures (if any?) apply. =Smidge=
Guess preview isn't all that reliable... stupid HTML.
Supposed to say: "Similar to a password, only instead of base 94... it's now base 65535 (number of possible ports used in the combination). An eight-port sequence would take, at worst, 340 million trillion trillion trials to crack."
Or other problems to be seen, also now hackers won't just port scan me, they'll port scan me a trillion times, trying to find the right combination to open my ports.
And what stops them from brute-forcing regular password protected access on a known port?
1) You don't know how many ports are in the knock sequence 2) You don't know that the range is 3) You don't know what port will open when you get it right
Similar to a password, only instead of base 94 (a-z,A-Z,0-9`~-_=+\][|}{';":/.,?>million trillion trillion trials to crack. Then you have to do one more scan to figure out which port actually opened after each trial and hope no other service opened a port for some unrelated reason.
I'm thinking it's a tad more secure than password authentication alone... and you can always throw password auth in after the client connects, so you can throw in a few false-positives (bogus logins) to keep them busy.
And a five second window to transmit the sequence is pretty generous. If you wanted to harden it even more against brute forcing, you could require a full 5 second wait and accept all connection attempts from a particular host. That would limit an attacker to 20 attempts per minute max. So it'll take the better part of 32 billion trillion years to crack it.
At that point, you can consider the end of the universe as "The ultimate connection timeout" =Smidge=
Oh yes, every time someone invents a motor that violates the laws of thermodynamics, it's Big Oil that steps in to silence them!
I have yet to find a single credible source explaining how the "Water engine" is supposed to operate. Perhaps you can point me to one?
It's always put up or shut up. Talk all you want but proof is proof. So far every nutball that claimed to build an engine that runs on water or an overunity device or inertial propulsion system has denied anyone credible from examining their invention.
Big Oil my ass. Maybe it just doesn't actually work? What could you possibly do to the water to get out more energy than you put in, or use the energy more efficiently by manipulating water than using it directly? Got any credible sources? If you do please share, I'm willing to accept the concepts if they are properly represented with lucid facts and backed by real data. =Smidge=
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
It's fun to poke around and see what some sites have in their robots.txt
When you have an employee, there's all sors of costs above and beyond his wage. You'll be paying insurance, possibly benefits, taxes, unemployment, ect. Plus you'll probably need a physical place for him to work, which means office space (rent is typically by the square foot) and equipment (outlay costs, maintenance, etc).
When you outsource, all you get is a bill. The company you get your labor from probably operates cheaper overall (India?) and so the net cost to you is probably lower in the end.
I'm not an employer though, so that's just a guess based on other examples in industry. =Smidge=
Unless there's some kind of magic alchemy going on, there isn't any more carbon on Earth now than there was a billion years ago. Not much of a design flaw in that respect.
But at the very least it would be putting it go good use: Plankton feeds fish, humans eat fish. Can't be all bad...
On the other hand, you could conceivably harvest the plankton and turn it into fuel of some kind, or stuff it in an abandoned mine like they're trying to do with gaseous CO2 already. =SMidge=
Cost, space and weight are typically the limiting factors. Though I did think to myself: "What kind of safety factor were they using?"
Then again, if they put a axle into a bearing and that axle was 0.81mm too small, that's a BIG gap, which can cause all sorts of wear and scratches. Even a small scratch in a high strength steel shaft can cause it to snap like a twig under normal loading because that tiny cut can amplify the stress in the material ten or twenty times easily (Depending on the situation, of course).
You'ld think they'd use a SF of at least 2 (200% of the strength the design requires). But as I said, a small scratch and that axle it gone.
The guy putting it together shold have noticed that, too. Chances are not only did the bearing not fit, but the seals probably didn't fit either! =Smidge=
Another human attribute which occurs from time to time is someone taking said work and claiming it as their own for the betterment or enjoyment of their bank account.
That was either some biting political commentary or a bad typo. (The real "nasty" site is.com not.gov:P)
The REAL problem is that inserting a %01 and unescaping the URL causes IE to NOT display the URL to display as typed. Thus, it redirects you to a different site without you knowing. Only IE does this, so clearly there's a "right way" and a "wrong way" to do it and IE is doing it wrong. That's a BUG and a big security problem. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Debt is what you owe other people. It has nothing to do with how much you actually have.
=Smidge=
If the state would pay for T1s for the schools, I guarantee you plenty of teachers (and administrators) would find good uses for them
Like child pornography!
</tounge-in-cheek>
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for installing internet service in schools - but you know sometimes you have to stop and think about what they really need it for, and what it will actually be used for, and if what you're paying for is what you need.
Do you really need 5 computers in every classroom, from Kindergarten to Grade 12 (On top of multiple, dedicated 20 or 30 machine labs PLUS library and office stations)? Do they all need internet access?
=Smidge=
Yes.
Each vehicle is followed by a manned one. Specifically, one of the team members and a contest official.
The team member has a "big read button" - which is a mandatory safety device - that is the vehicle is in danger of or actually goes off course can be used to shut it down.
Then you can get disqualified for it, upon the disgression of the cheif judge.
Check out the latest copy of the rules
=Smidge=
And so I continue the great legacy of answering my own questions shortly after I've asked them...
"One bushel of corn yields 2.5-2.7 gallons of ethanol from the starch component of corn"
Also interesting that the processes of ethanol and corn oil (biodiesel) production from corn don't seem to interfere with eachother, and are somewhat complimentary: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/prod_process.html
=Smidge=
I think the original intent of that comment was something like:
-Creating ethanol fuel requires 30% more energy to to make than you get from burning it. Therefore, for every 100 joules of energy from the you put into the Corn->Mash->Ethanol->Fuel->Energy cycle , you only get 75 out. A "net loss"
-Fuel cells don't "burn" alcohol like an IC engine does, and therefore the process may be more efficient. If using fuel cells is good enough to offset the 30% loss realized with conventional burning, then you would have a "net gain" form the cycle.
This only works if the "free" solar energy is not part of the "energy in" equation. Of course you're not going to get more energy out than was put in as a whole, but will you be able to convert the solar energy into electricity efficiently enough to recover the extra energy you had to put in to make the conversion?
Frankly, I'd like to see where that 30% figure came from. I don't believe that takes solar energy into account... in which case it would be much easier to overcome.
Although personally, I still think you can get more energy out of the corn as biodiesel than as ethanol. Any idea what the yeild is? Say, gallons of ethanol per bushel?
=Smidge=
There's no real defence for that now, persay. So in that respect little has changed.
Though I supopose you couls always face a few of those guns inward...
=Smidge=
But on the other hand, it would become somewhat easier to defend since the target would be that much smaller.
Built an ancology and bristle the outside with Phalanx batteries. No missile or unauthorized plane would get within a mile of the place! (literally)
=Smidge=
That's another way to do it. The net result is that the center of mass for the whole thing stays in geo-sync orbit.
To the best of my knowledge, "Highlift Systems" (Being the most visible group working on this concept) does not use the two-ended-ribbon system you describe. All depends on who you talk to.
=Smidge=
As I recall, the satellite would would move out and away from teh planet as the cable was lowered, so the center of mass for the whole thing stayed at GCO. Thus, it wouldn't fall. Once the calbe is strong enough, a transport car (whose mass would be really smal compared to te satellite) can ride up and down without upsetting the whole system.
=Smidge=
Just send them an ACME Do-It-Yourself Space Elevator Kit!
One complete space elevator tailored for Martian use. Pack it up, send it over, put it into geo-stationary orbit where you want it, and drop anchor. This can probablty all be done remotely.
If I'm not mistaken, that's pretty much how they (currently) plan to build on for Earth: Unreel a starter cable from above and anchor it. Only difference is the crawlers that go up and down the starter cable to reinforce it would have to start at the top.
=Smidge=
Same is true with a password, or any auth system for that matter. It's 100% true that you only need to get it right once.
For an eight-key sequence, odds are either:
2.18 x 10^14 to 1 (Assuming a-z,A-Z,0-9 password only)
-or-
3.40 x 10^38 to 1 (Port knocking)
So, which do you think you're more likely to hit on the first try?
=Smidge=
And my point was that the likelyhood of cracking it is so astoundingly small it's not worth even trying. At that point they might as well just try to DoS you, in which case the usual protective measures (if any?) apply.
=Smidge=
Guess preview isn't all that reliable... stupid HTML.
... it's now base 65535 (number of possible ports used in the combination). An eight-port sequence would take, at worst, 340 million trillion trillion trials to crack."
Supposed to say:
"Similar to a password, only instead of base 94
=Smidge=
Or other problems to be seen, also now hackers won't just port scan me, they'll port scan me a trillion times, trying to find the right combination to open my ports.
And what stops them from brute-forcing regular password protected access on a known port?
1) You don't know how many ports are in the knock sequence
2) You don't know that the range is
3) You don't know what port will open when you get it right
Similar to a password, only instead of base 94 (a-z,A-Z,0-9`~-_=+\][|}{';":/.,?>million trillion trillion trials to crack. Then you have to do one more scan to figure out which port actually opened after each trial and hope no other service opened a port for some unrelated reason.
I'm thinking it's a tad more secure than password authentication alone... and you can always throw password auth in after the client connects, so you can throw in a few false-positives (bogus logins) to keep them busy.
And a five second window to transmit the sequence is pretty generous. If you wanted to harden it even more against brute forcing, you could require a full 5 second wait and accept all connection attempts from a particular host. That would limit an attacker to 20 attempts per minute max. So it'll take the better part of 32 billion trillion years to crack it.
At that point, you can consider the end of the universe as "The ultimate connection timeout"
=Smidge=
If RHIC doesn't count as a high energy collider, what exactly would be considered "High Energy"?
Smashing heavy ions at 99.95% the speed of light to produce trillion-degree temeratures isn't "High energy"?
=Smidge=
Oh yes, every time someone invents a motor that violates the laws of thermodynamics, it's Big Oil that steps in to silence them!
I have yet to find a single credible source explaining how the "Water engine" is supposed to operate. Perhaps you can point me to one?
It's always put up or shut up. Talk all you want but proof is proof. So far every nutball that claimed to build an engine that runs on water or an overunity device or inertial propulsion system has denied anyone credible from examining their invention.
Big Oil my ass. Maybe it just doesn't actually work? What could you possibly do to the water to get out more energy than you put in, or use the energy more efficiently by manipulating water than using it directly? Got any credible sources? If you do please share, I'm willing to accept the concepts if they are properly represented with lucid facts and backed by real data.
=Smidge=
It's fun to poke around and see what some sites have in their robots.txt
t avista.com/robots.txt
http://www.google.com/robots.txt
http://www.al
Oddly, MSN and Yahoo! don't seem to have one. Google can sneak in and index MSN!
=Smidge=
My guess would be, less overhead.
When you have an employee, there's all sors of costs above and beyond his wage. You'll be paying insurance, possibly benefits, taxes, unemployment, ect. Plus you'll probably need a physical place for him to work, which means office space (rent is typically by the square foot) and equipment (outlay costs, maintenance, etc).
When you outsource, all you get is a bill. The company you get your labor from probably operates cheaper overall (India?) and so the net cost to you is probably lower in the end.
I'm not an employer though, so that's just a guess based on other examples in industry.
=Smidge=
If you have asteroid strikes reaching the bottom of the oceans or nuclear blasts in just about any form, CO2 probably ain't your biggest problem.
Here's a reference to the abandoned mine storage concept.
=Smidge=
Unless there's some kind of magic alchemy going on, there isn't any more carbon on Earth now than there was a billion years ago. Not much of a design flaw in that respect.
But at the very least it would be putting it go good use: Plankton feeds fish, humans eat fish. Can't be all bad...
On the other hand, you could conceivably harvest the plankton and turn it into fuel of some kind, or stuff it in an abandoned mine like they're trying to do with gaseous CO2 already.
=SMidge=
Trying to DDoS SCO is illegal? What about what /. been doing nearly every day?
Oops. I think I hear SCO lawyers slithering out back...
=Smidge=
Cost, space and weight are typically the limiting factors. Though I did think to myself: "What kind of safety factor were they using?"
Then again, if they put a axle into a bearing and that axle was 0.81mm too small, that's a BIG gap, which can cause all sorts of wear and scratches. Even a small scratch in a high strength steel shaft can cause it to snap like a twig under normal loading because that tiny cut can amplify the stress in the material ten or twenty times easily (Depending on the situation, of course).
You'ld think they'd use a SF of at least 2 (200% of the strength the design requires). But as I said, a small scratch and that axle it gone.
The guy putting it together shold have noticed that, too. Chances are not only did the bearing not fit, but the seals probably didn't fit either!
=Smidge=
So if he succeeds with all his DRM plans, does he get crowned?*
(*hit on the head)
=Smidge=
Another human attribute which occurs from time to time is someone taking said work and claiming it as their own for the betterment or enjoyment of their bank account.
=Smidge=
That was either some biting political commentary or a bad typo. (The real "nasty" site is .com not .gov :P)
The REAL problem is that inserting a %01 and unescaping the URL causes IE to NOT display the URL to display as typed. Thus, it redirects you to a different site without you knowing. Only IE does this, so clearly there's a "right way" and a "wrong way" to do it and IE is doing it wrong. That's a BUG and a big security problem.
=Smidge=