I said:... the discovery of the "mammalian diving reflex", (which, when the back of the neck is cold when oxygen runs out, causes the metering valves in the blood vessels to stick OPEN, allowing the brain to revive if circulation is restored as much as a half hour later.)
Oops! Wikipeida is your friend:
The diving reflex is triggered specifically by chilling and wetting the nostrils and face while breath-holding,[2][7] and is sustained via neural processing originating in the carotid chemoreceptors.
There NEVER were clear lines! Jeez!... Aliveness always has been a gradient!
Cryonicists have been saying things like this for decades, even before the first confirmed cases of resuscitation of heart attack victims, or of drowning victims and the discovery of the "mammalian diving reflex", (which, when the back of the neck is cold when oxygen runs out, causes the metering valves in the blood vessels to stick OPEN, allowing the brain to revive if circulation is restored as much as a half hour later.)
One catchphrase: "Death is not a state. It is a prognosis." What that means is that, with current technology, you don't have the ability to restore the person to what is recognized as life before the body deteriorates into "information theoretical death" - when there is no longer the necessary information encoded in the corpse to make it possible for any conceivable technology to restore, or recreate, a living body exhibiting the pre-event personality.
In _The Man Who Sold The Moon_ the idea was to go to the (thinly disguised) Coca Cooa company and sell them the rights to turn the moon into a billboard - a giant bottle cap - by launching small rockets to spread soot to selectively darken the surface.
But the idea was not to actually DO it. It was to NOT do it, and build an ad campaign on how it had bought the rights in order to head off one of its rivals (7 up, also thinly disguised as "6+"). The 7up/6+ logo would be easily readable from Earth, but the Coca Cola / (whatever he called it) was too "busy" to be clear.
7up was independent at the time. But it's now owned by PepsiCo.
The US doesn't give a flying fuck about either because the goddam citizens are interested in more important things like Farmville.
The US doesn't give an F.F. because the government is still largely in the hands of the party-organization swamp creatures. They are currently largely controlled by the media conglomerates, and don't give a Rat's Ass about what the citizens think.
The big fight here is to drain that swamp, and has been for several cycles. That's what the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus were about. That's why Trump was elected. And that's why trump is flamed 24/7 in the media.
Of course people in Europe have NO IDEA that is what's going on here. Because they get their ideas about what's going on here from the media.
Historically [diesel fuel] was also cheaper, though that changed a decade or so ago.
The FUEL ITSELF is still cheaper. But the TAXES are higher.
That's allegedly as a convenient way to collect money from the commercial trucks to pay a proportionate share of the road building/repair costs.
But it's interesting that the state governments didn't jack diesel fuel taxes up so far that the fuel was selling at substantially more per gallon than gasoline until there were a substantial number of diesel cars on the road. (Amazingly enough, the fraction of diesel vs. gasoline cars took a dive back down to "miniscule" starting shortly thereafter.)
Oh, we're using that made up 'crackers' instead of 'hackers' because we think out ret-conning it to mean something else is better.
Sorry, but 'crackers' was used 20 years after the fact.
As someone who was there at the time, I can assure you that "crackers" was in use, in exactly this way, and has been continuously since. It's not a ret-con if was there at the time.
As near as the members of the hacker circle where I hang out have been able to determine, the misuse of hacker (exceptinoally skilled, boundary-pushing, programmer {or whatever - it's not just about software, or even just the default of computers}) for cracker started when an early "security expert" did a session on security risks at a management convention.
Upper management's first exposure to the issue had the "hacker" word on it. Middle management had to adopt it to avoid seeming ignorant of a threat in their area of professional expertise. The business press used the words their customers did. The general press picked it up from the business press, and the rest of the non-technical population from the popular press.
Computer technical experts have since been fighting an uphill battle over this misuse of one of their most cherished technical terms. But it's a classic "language riot", so don't expect it to stop, no matter how lopsided the battle seems.
Oh, we're using that made up 'crackers' instead of 'hackers' because we think out ret-conning it to mean something else is better.
Sorry, but 'crackers' was used 20 years after the fact.
As someone who was there at the time, I can assure you that "crackers" was in use, in exaOh, we're using that made up 'crackers' instead of 'hackers' because we think out ret-conning it to mean something else is better.
Sorry, but 'crackers' was used 20 years after the fact.ctly this way, and has been continuously since. It's not a ret-con if was there at the time.
As near as the members of the hacker circle where I hang out have been able to determine, the misuse of hacker (exceptinoally skilled, boundary-pushing, programmer {or whatever - it's not just about software, or even just the default of computers}) for cracker started when an early "security expert" did a session on security risks at a management convention.
Upper management's first exposure to the issue had the "hacker" word on it. Middle management had to adopt it to avoid seeming ignorant of a threat in their area of professional expertise. The business press used the words their customers did. The general press picked it up from the business press, and the rest of the non-technical population from the popular press.
Computer technical experts have since been fighting an uphill battle over this misuse of one of their most cherished technical terms. But it's a classic "language riot", so don't expect it to stop, no matter how lopsided the battle seems.
A what point will people admit that intercontinental travel and trade pose serious ecological risks and really need to be better controled.
Also: At what point (if any) will we be able to discuss the disease spreading issues of lax border security, without being shut down as "racist hate-mongers" by SJWs?
The open southern border of the US has now been implicated in the reintroduction of, at least:
- Measles
- Drug resistant Tuberculosis
- Virulent Newcastle Disease and I could go on.
VND is a serious, highly-contagous, viral disease of birds, particularly chickens. (It does occasionally hop to humans, causing eye irritation and/or mild fever, but doesn't propagate.) It has been introduced into the US over the southern border at least three times, apparently in smuggled fighting cocks each time.
Currently the only solution, once it gets loose in an area, is to kill ALL the chickens in all the flocks, and perform major sterilization on the facilities to wipe out the rather robust virii. (This tends to put egg farmers out of business, because they are paid for the birds themselves, but not the lost egg production from then until the next year, which is as soon as they can get replacement birds.)
The second time this got loose in California, the state went from the #1 to the #6 egg producer. It's still over a billion-dollar industry so expect similar draconian measures to protect as much of it as possible this time around.
The third introduction was just a few months back. It's been found in several sites in the LA are, in a showbird in Utah, and a single bird brought to a vet in Redwood City (by someone who moved the bird several times and is NOT cooperating in identifying the movement history of the birtd, or the locations of his other birds). Then (after a couple weeks) an additional outbreak showed up in Arazona.
Also, they don't have much incentive to create one-off cures. That's why we still don't have an AIDS vaccine or an affordable cure for malaria.
ORLY?
I was under the impression that we didn't have a vaccing or cure (affordable or otherwise) because these two pathogens are very hard problems.
HIV: Like the Black Plague before it, it attacks the immune system directly (via the same target!). Unlike Plague, it works slowly and uses an error-prone replication to mutate VERY rapidly, so an end-stage patient has multiple variants, with what's left of his immune system trying to whack an army of many different types of moles.
Malaria: Lives and reproduces inside red blood cells, out of reach of the immune system (except when hopping to new ones about once a month). Mature red cells dump their cellular machinery (probably to avoid cancer from the mutagenic environment), so the mechanism cells use to bring signs of internal invaders to the surface runs down. In millions of years of evolution the best mammals could come up with is a genetic bobby trap - sickle cell haemoglobin - which kills about quarter of the kids in order to make 2/3 of the survivors resistant. That being an advantageous tradeoff should also give you an idea of how nasty the bug is.
YouTube is a private business, not a government organization. They can delete or prohibit anything they want, for any reason they want. They don't even have to give you a reason. They can just delete your video because they don't like you.
If they hold patents that prevent competition, that creates government suppression of alternative platforms of the same type.
It could be argued that government courts enforcing those patents for them, while the censorship is in progress, against operators of an alternative platform that shows content they reject, constitutes a first amendment violation and thus invalidates the patents in question.
It would be interesting to see an alternative video platform take that tack - even without a court case. The operators could announce that they are allowing the rejected content explicitly to make the claim that they have to carry it in order to head off the suits.
And if it ever came to court they could also argue that there was no case because the patent-holder's business is not be harmed by others hosting content they won't carry, and with the algorithms secret the alternative video company can't be expected to determine which subset of the content that is.
"But while we're at it, let's get those algorithms by the discovery process, to see how much damage they might be entitled to if the court rules for them on content they would carry." (Then, if the court rules that carrying content YouTube wouldn't reject IS an infringement, ask for the algorithms to be made public, along with any future changes, so the creators can know what to send to the alternative providers and the alternative providers can know what's safe to carry.
Fat chance? Maybe. But the law is a tricky thing and there's no way to be sure how a court will rule on an argument until it does. B-)
Re:Why is it called "intelligence" anyway... and not "spying" or "surveillance" or, even better, "data kraken"?
For much the same reason the US's first army, back during the revolution, was called the "Second Army" or the atomic bomb project was called "The Manhattan Project.
It's the "Fog of War": The name is not for clarity. It's a tool to advance the organization's objectives.
When the enemy is battling the Second Army, his attention is distracted, wondering if the First Army is about to attack from behind or on another flank. You get that extra wound on his efforts for free, just by choosing a name.
Calling it "Intelligence" rather than "spying" (which is only a PART of it, anyhow), makes it more palatable to the rulers and funders, resulting in more resources and less interference.
It's also a pun: By providing extra information and analysis of it to military decision makers, it enables (thogugh doesn't guarantee) better decisions, much as making them smarter might do.
Don't come here with your bald faced lie that the FCC NN regs prohibited QoS
QoS off the QoS field bits doesn't work - because the backbone routers don't pay attention to them. The routers don't pay attention to them because, in the early days, Microsoft "improved" their IP stack's performance by lying about the QoS required.
So the router companies did QoS by deep packet inspection and applying software rules to what they found. And the same chips that enable doing GOOD with those rulesets also enable doing BAD with them. (And don't YOU come hear with YOUR bald face and try to tell us otherwise - because I DESIGNED some of those chips.)
The problem is not whether the FCC NN rules prohibited QoS - by either definition. The problem is that the tools enable anticompetitive behavior by the ISPs and FCC doesn't have either the right mindset or the right mandate to do the necessary regulation. But the FTC does. They live and breathe it. Their power lies in doing it.
Sheep dogs can be good. But for some problems you need an attack dog.
Why wasn't this done in the first place!? It is an industry standard to use redundancy for life critical applications. They have redundancy already, why didn't they use it?
Also: Applying the patch creates TWO single points of failure for the system. If EITHER of the angle of attack sensors fails, goes off-calibration by more than 5 1/2 degrees, or angle of attack at the two sensors differs by more than that small amount, the MCAS will shut down.
The MCAS is there to bring the nose down if the aircraft is about to stall, which it is prone to do because of the relocation of the engines (relative to the previous model) forward and up, along with the reshaping of their nacelles. With the MCAS shut down the aircraft is back to having a risk of a sudden stall, which can ALSO cause it to have an "uncontrolled flight into ground" if it's too low for the pilots to recover (which is pretty darned high).
As with aircraft carrier naval groups, continents also ALWAYS have the right-of-way over airliners.
If they REALLY want to do something useful, how about banning disappearing-ink receipts?
I've had SO many receipts from California merchants where the blue ink faded completely by tax-filing time, leaving me with a mysterious piece of blank paper in my "deduct this" collection. B-b
They actually make button cell batteries with different chemistry for long life.
Several, actually.
The poster child is Lithium Thionyl Chloride. (LiSOCl2)
Ten years or better in service. -55C to +85C (or still higher with a slightly tweaked chemistry.) Enormous capacity. (A size-D is 19 amphours at about 3.6V)
It's what they use in things like EPIRBs, underwater drones, and long life or extreme temperature IoT package tracking / environment monitoring tags.
Consider that 1000 of my local ISP's customers want to watch a hot new Netflix show. My ISP is 1000 km from the nearest Netflix data center. The dumb solution is that 1000 customers sent requests to ISP who sends them 1000 km to Netflix who sends the show 1000 times over the backbone connection.
It'll die in the Senate. On the plus side this puts the Republicans on record as opposing Net Neutrality.
The Republicans aren't "opposed to Network Neutrality". They're opposed to using a broken fix that will break things further.
As I've been saying for years (often on slashdot): - Treating all packets the same breaks things (because TCP will ramp up until it eats streaming.) - The real issue is not "non-neutrality", but several kinds of anticompetitve behavior by oligopolist ISPs (in vertically-integrated conglomerates with providers of services carried on their pipes.)
- The right fix is to move the issue from the FCC (with its technical bent and cluelessness about competition and market issues) to the FTC (which has a big hammer and is not afraid to use it on big companies).
- This will just require a minor tweak (to convince the FTC that they're hot banned from going after internet-related companies, and perhaps another to insure they can afford to do so).
The Trump administration is the first one that sees things the same way. (Try actually READING what Ajit Pai has said.)
= = = =
Now if they only do HALF of it - slap down the FCC but not sick the FTC onto the problem - THEN you'll have the problem so many slashdotters are wringing their hands over. (That would be like California's experiment with moving the nonviolent mentally-ill out of asylums to outpatient treatment - then doing only the first half, resulting in the start of the "homelessness problem".)
But Trump's administration has a STRONG incentive to do both halves: The mainstream news media have treated him very badly - and they're parts of the same vertically integrated conglomerates as the ISPs. FTC action against anticompetitive ISP practices could easily result in a breakup of each of the handful of vertically-integrated conglomerates in question and/or other penalties, causing their pocketbooks commensurate pain.
And a lot of that power is spent pumping out the heat from the lights. So if the lights result in less heat, the HVAC runs less and also uses less power. Win-win.
Except in Winter?
In winter, if you use resistive electric heat, it's a wash. Whatever you saved on waste heat you paid for in extra HVAC heat.
But if you use heat-pump electric heat with an EER of 3.3 you get about 2/3s of the savings. With an EER of 10 you get 90% of it.
(Also: The EER of 3.3 I used earlier for HVAC cooling is low for modern equipment, which can run 10 or better. And it varies with the outside temperature.)
But you're using fuel-burning heat it's probably a LOT cheaper than electric. So you get the savings on the light power and only pay a pittance replacing the lower losses.
And if you have solar heat (or other renewable sources) it's free - just a matter of having enough collection.
For fully R.E. facilities getting the (post-carnot-cycle high-quality) electric energy is the tough and pricey (in capital equipment) item, while raw heat is easy and cheap. So cutting the electric demand to the bone - which LED lamps do for illumination - is definitely the way to go.
This is 2019, not 1991, nobody has a house full of 75 watt or higher bulbs, they have all burned out and we were all forced to buy crappy CFL's then finally usable LED's
Depends. I still have a bunch in service at the ranch - because we hadn't been out there enough to burn them out yet.
Also: CFLs are only 4x, not 10x, better than incandescents. So there's still a lot to gain (drop your lighting and lighting-related HVAC costs to about 40% of their current value) by switching from CFLs to current LEDs.
And LEDs have gotten close enough to perfect in the last couple years that their rapid improvement is tapering off, so there's no point in waiting around. You might get another 2x improvement by the time the current ones die but there probably isn't another 4x improvement available for a long time, if ever.
Your HVAC is the big energy consumer in your house.
And a lot of that power is spent pumping out the heat from the lights. So if the lights result in less heat, the HVAC runs less and also uses less power. Win-win.
Standard incandescents run about 2.2% efficiency. So for one unit of light energy they burn over 45 units of power. It all ends up as heat for the HVAC to pump out on cooling days.
Modern LEDs run about 1/10th the power for a given amount of light. (The 1/5th of TFA is a couple years out of date.) Cutting your lighting power by a factor of 10 is a lot. (LEDs are now only a couple more doublings from emitting nothing but the light, with no waste.)
While cooling your lights is only part of an HVAC's work, it's a BIG part. (A resting person, for instance, only emits about 75 watts of heat, so even a single table lamp may be loading the HVAC more than a person.) That part is reduced proportion to the reduction in the heat from the lighting . HVACs in cooling mode have an Energy Efficiency Ratio in the ballpark of 3.3. So for every three watts of power you save on your lights, you save about another watt on HVAC power on cooling days.
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
But for those who really wonder about this:
I thought we should all be driving electric cars because they where emission free... So how does using more electricity for light bulbs create pollution when charging my car doesn't?
Electric cars are emission free where they operate, but fuel-driven power plants that make the electricity to charge them, of course, are not.
However: Fuel-driven power plants can run hotter and scavenge better, resulting in a lot less pollution than the engine that must be carried by an internal-combustion car. (Also, you have to burn more fuel to carry it around. It, with its powertrain, is a lot heavier than the batteries and electric motors of an electric vehicle.)
For those concerned about carbon output, stationary power plants CAN also use less polluting fuels (such as natural gas) than the liquids suitable for mobile use (without a heavy pressure tank). Modern fast-charge battery packs have little charge/discharge loss (or they'd melt, so they wouldn't be fast-charge B-) ). Even with the grid losses you end up with less total pollution from operation with electric cars.
Another factor is that the pollution is emitted at the power plant, rather than in crowded traffic. (This is yet another source of enmity between the urban and rural populations, as the latter may view the city people as exporting their pollution to the country people's back yards.)
I recall (decades ago, in a "popular" (electronics or whatever) magazine, an eddy-current "fishing magnet" for picking up non-magnetic conductive things (like coins-in-a-fountain):
- Cylindrical wooden frame. (Anything non-conductive would do) With screw eye or the like at the top.
- cylinder of strips of transformer core iron.
- central core of ditto.
- Stack of three thick copper washers in the gap between them, at the "business end", STRONGLY screwed to the frame (because otherwise the AC mag field would throw them across the room FAST - like through the drywall).
- Coil driven by AC around the whole "can".
Induces a very strong current loops in the copper washers - and any other conductor near the gap between the co-axial central and outer shell of transformer iron. Though the field tries to push the conducto (coin or whatever) away, the pinch effect pulls it even more strongly toward the copper washer current loop, which is fixed to the device. So there's a strong net pull, and you can use it like a magnet on a rope to pick up nonmagnetic metals.
Slashdot Mirror
I said: ... the discovery of the "mammalian diving reflex", (which, when the back of the neck is cold when oxygen runs out, causes the metering valves in the blood vessels to stick OPEN, allowing the brain to revive if circulation is restored as much as a half hour later.)
Oops! Wikipeida is your friend:
There NEVER were clear lines! Jeez! ... Aliveness always has been a gradient!
Cryonicists have been saying things like this for decades, even before the first confirmed cases of resuscitation of heart attack victims, or of drowning victims and the discovery of the "mammalian diving reflex", (which, when the back of the neck is cold when oxygen runs out, causes the metering valves in the blood vessels to stick OPEN, allowing the brain to revive if circulation is restored as much as a half hour later.)
One catchphrase: "Death is not a state. It is a prognosis." What that means is that, with current technology, you don't have the ability to restore the person to what is recognized as life before the body deteriorates into "information theoretical death" - when there is no longer the necessary information encoded in the corpse to make it possible for any conceivable technology to restore, or recreate, a living body exhibiting the pre-event personality.
In _The Man Who Sold The Moon_ the idea was to go to the (thinly disguised) Coca Cooa company and sell them the rights to turn the moon into a billboard - a giant bottle cap - by launching small rockets to spread soot to selectively darken the surface.
But the idea was not to actually DO it. It was to NOT do it, and build an ad campaign on how it had bought the rights in order to head off one of its rivals (7 up, also thinly disguised as "6+"). The 7up/6+ logo would be easily readable from Earth, but the Coca Cola / (whatever he called it) was too "busy" to be clear.
7up was independent at the time. But it's now owned by PepsiCo.
The US doesn't give a flying fuck about either because the goddam citizens are interested in more important things like Farmville.
The US doesn't give an F.F. because the government is still largely in the hands of the party-organization swamp creatures. They are currently largely controlled by the media conglomerates, and don't give a Rat's Ass about what the citizens think.
The big fight here is to drain that swamp, and has been for several cycles. That's what the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus were about. That's why Trump was elected. And that's why trump is flamed 24/7 in the media.
Of course people in Europe have NO IDEA that is what's going on here. Because they get their ideas about what's going on here from the media.
How convenient.
Historically [diesel fuel] was also cheaper, though that changed a decade or so ago.
The FUEL ITSELF is still cheaper. But the TAXES are higher.
That's allegedly as a convenient way to collect money from the commercial trucks to pay a proportionate share of the road building/repair costs.
But it's interesting that the state governments didn't jack diesel fuel taxes up so far that the fuel was selling at substantially more per gallon than gasoline until there were a substantial number of diesel cars on the road. (Amazingly enough, the fraction of diesel vs. gasoline cars took a dive back down to "miniscule" starting shortly thereafter.)
Oh, we're using that made up 'crackers' instead of 'hackers' because we think out ret-conning it to mean something else is better.
Sorry, but 'crackers' was used 20 years after the fact.
As someone who was there at the time, I can assure you that "crackers" was in use, in exactly this way, and has been continuously since. It's not a ret-con if was there at the time.
As near as the members of the hacker circle where I hang out have been able to determine, the misuse of hacker (exceptinoally skilled, boundary-pushing, programmer {or whatever - it's not just about software, or even just the default of computers}) for cracker started when an early "security expert" did a session on security risks at a management convention.
Upper management's first exposure to the issue had the "hacker" word on it. Middle management had to adopt it to avoid seeming ignorant of a threat in their area of professional expertise. The business press used the words their customers did. The general press picked it up from the business press, and the rest of the non-technical population from the popular press.
Computer technical experts have since been fighting an uphill battle over this misuse of one of their most cherished technical terms. But it's a classic "language riot", so don't expect it to stop, no matter how lopsided the battle seems.
Oh, we're using that made up 'crackers' instead of 'hackers' because we think out ret-conning it to mean something else is better.
Sorry, but 'crackers' was used 20 years after the fact.
As someone who was there at the time, I can assure you that "crackers" was in use, in exaOh, we're using that made up 'crackers' instead of 'hackers' because we think out ret-conning it to mean something else is better.
Sorry, but 'crackers' was used 20 years after the fact.ctly this way, and has been continuously since. It's not a ret-con if was there at the time.
As near as the members of the hacker circle where I hang out have been able to determine, the misuse of hacker (exceptinoally skilled, boundary-pushing, programmer {or whatever - it's not just about software, or even just the default of computers}) for cracker started when an early "security expert" did a session on security risks at a management convention.
Upper management's first exposure to the issue had the "hacker" word on it. Middle management had to adopt it to avoid seeming ignorant of a threat in their area of professional expertise. The business press used the words their customers did. The general press picked it up from the business press, and the rest of the non-technical population from the popular press.
Computer technical experts have since been fighting an uphill battle over this misuse of one of their most cherished technical terms. But it's a classic "language riot", so don't expect it to stop, no matter how lopsided the battle seems.
A what point will people admit that intercontinental travel and trade pose serious ecological risks and really need to be better controled.
Also: At what point (if any) will we be able to discuss the disease spreading issues of lax border security, without being shut down as "racist hate-mongers" by SJWs?
The open southern border of the US has now been implicated in the reintroduction of, at least:
- Measles
- Drug resistant Tuberculosis
- Virulent Newcastle Disease
and I could go on.
VND is a serious, highly-contagous, viral disease of birds, particularly chickens. (It does occasionally hop to humans, causing eye irritation and/or mild fever, but doesn't propagate.) It has been introduced into the US over the southern border at least three times, apparently in smuggled fighting cocks each time.
Currently the only solution, once it gets loose in an area, is to kill ALL the chickens in all the flocks, and perform major sterilization on the facilities to wipe out the rather robust virii. (This tends to put egg farmers out of business, because they are paid for the birds themselves, but not the lost egg production from then until the next year, which is as soon as they can get replacement birds.)
The second time this got loose in California, the state went from the #1 to the #6 egg producer. It's still over a billion-dollar industry so expect similar draconian measures to protect as much of it as possible this time around.
The third introduction was just a few months back. It's been found in several sites in the LA are, in a showbird in Utah, and a single bird brought to a vet in Redwood City (by someone who moved the bird several times and is NOT cooperating in identifying the movement history of the birtd, or the locations of his other birds). Then (after a couple weeks) an additional outbreak showed up in Arazona.
Also, they don't have much incentive to create one-off cures. That's why we still don't have an AIDS vaccine or an affordable cure for malaria.
ORLY?
I was under the impression that we didn't have a vaccing or cure (affordable or otherwise) because these two pathogens are very hard problems.
HIV: Like the Black Plague before it, it attacks the immune system directly (via the same target!). Unlike Plague, it works slowly and uses an error-prone replication to mutate VERY rapidly, so an end-stage patient has multiple variants, with what's left of his immune system trying to whack an army of many different types of moles.
Malaria: Lives and reproduces inside red blood cells, out of reach of the immune system (except when hopping to new ones about once a month). Mature red cells dump their cellular machinery (probably to avoid cancer from the mutagenic environment), so the mechanism cells use to bring signs of internal invaders to the surface runs down. In millions of years of evolution the best mammals could come up with is a genetic bobby trap - sickle cell haemoglobin - which kills about quarter of the kids in order to make 2/3 of the survivors resistant. That being an advantageous tradeoff should also give you an idea of how nasty the bug is.
YouTube is a private business, not a government organization. They can delete or prohibit anything they want, for any reason they want. They don't even have to give you a reason. They can just delete your video because they don't like you.
If they hold patents that prevent competition, that creates government suppression of alternative platforms of the same type.
It could be argued that government courts enforcing those patents for them, while the censorship is in progress, against operators of an alternative platform that shows content they reject, constitutes a first amendment violation and thus invalidates the patents in question.
It would be interesting to see an alternative video platform take that tack - even without a court case. The operators could announce that they are allowing the rejected content explicitly to make the claim that they have to carry it in order to head off the suits.
And if it ever came to court they could also argue that there was no case because the patent-holder's business is not be harmed by others hosting content they won't carry, and with the algorithms secret the alternative video company can't be expected to determine which subset of the content that is.
"But while we're at it, let's get those algorithms by the discovery process, to see how much damage they might be entitled to if the court rules for them on content they would carry." (Then, if the court rules that carrying content YouTube wouldn't reject IS an infringement, ask for the algorithms to be made public, along with any future changes, so the creators can know what to send to the alternative providers and the alternative providers can know what's safe to carry.
Fat chance? Maybe. But the law is a tricky thing and there's no way to be sure how a court will rule on an argument until it does. B-)
Re:Why is it called "intelligence" anyway ... and not "spying" or "surveillance" or, even better, "data kraken"?
For much the same reason the US's first army, back during the revolution, was called the "Second Army" or the atomic bomb project was called "The Manhattan Project.
It's the "Fog of War": The name is not for clarity. It's a tool to advance the organization's objectives.
When the enemy is battling the Second Army, his attention is distracted, wondering if the First Army is about to attack from behind or on another flank. You get that extra wound on his efforts for free, just by choosing a name.
Calling it "Intelligence" rather than "spying" (which is only a PART of it, anyhow), makes it more palatable to the rulers and funders, resulting in more resources and less interference.
It's also a pun: By providing extra information and analysis of it to military decision makers, it enables (thogugh doesn't guarantee) better decisions, much as making them smarter might do.
I'm curious about what battery technology they plan to use. It would have been nice if TFA had mentioned that. (Or did I miss it?)
Lithium Ion? Vanadium Redox? Something else?
Who's the manufacturer?
Does anybody happen to know?
But, if the sun doesn't shine, how will you be able to watch TV?
By using a BATTERY that got CHARGED WHEN THE SUN WAS SHINING.
Which is what TFA was abuot. I know you didn't read it. But did you even read the title of the Slashdot article? It's in that, too.
Don't come here with your bald faced lie that the FCC NN regs prohibited QoS
QoS off the QoS field bits doesn't work - because the backbone routers don't pay attention to them. The routers don't pay attention to them because, in the early days, Microsoft "improved" their IP stack's performance by lying about the QoS required.
So the router companies did QoS by deep packet inspection and applying software rules to what they found. And the same chips that enable doing GOOD with those rulesets also enable doing BAD with them. (And don't YOU come hear with YOUR bald face and try to tell us otherwise - because I DESIGNED some of those chips.)
The problem is not whether the FCC NN rules prohibited QoS - by either definition. The problem is that the tools enable anticompetitive behavior by the ISPs and FCC doesn't have either the right mindset or the right mandate to do the necessary regulation. But the FTC does. They live and breathe it. Their power lies in doing it.
Sheep dogs can be good. But for some problems you need an attack dog.
Why wasn't this done in the first place!? It is an industry standard to use redundancy for life critical applications. They have redundancy already, why didn't they use it?
Also: Applying the patch creates TWO single points of failure for the system. If EITHER of the angle of attack sensors fails, goes off-calibration by more than 5 1/2 degrees, or angle of attack at the two sensors differs by more than that small amount, the MCAS will shut down.
The MCAS is there to bring the nose down if the aircraft is about to stall, which it is prone to do because of the relocation of the engines (relative to the previous model) forward and up, along with the reshaping of their nacelles. With the MCAS shut down the aircraft is back to having a risk of a sudden stall, which can ALSO cause it to have an "uncontrolled flight into ground" if it's too low for the pilots to recover (which is pretty darned high).
As with aircraft carrier naval groups, continents also ALWAYS have the right-of-way over airliners.
"I dream of a world where a chicken can cross the road without having its motives questioned."
If they REALLY want to do something useful, how about banning disappearing-ink receipts?
I've had SO many receipts from California merchants where the blue ink faded completely by tax-filing time, leaving me with a mysterious piece of blank paper in my "deduct this" collection. B-b
They actually make button cell batteries with different chemistry for long life.
Several, actually.
The poster child is Lithium Thionyl Chloride. (LiSOCl2)
Ten years or better in service. -55C to +85C (or still higher with a slightly tweaked chemistry.) Enormous capacity. (A size-D is 19 amphours at about 3.6V)
It's what they use in things like EPIRBs, underwater drones, and long life or extreme temperature IoT package tracking / environment monitoring tags.
Consider that 1000 of my local ISP's customers want to watch a hot new Netflix show. My ISP is 1000 km from the nearest Netflix data center. The dumb solution is that 1000 customers sent requests to ISP who sends them 1000 km to Netflix who sends the show 1000 times over the backbone connection.
One word: Multicast.
It's already in the Internet suite.
It'll die in the Senate. On the plus side this puts the Republicans on record as opposing Net Neutrality.
The Republicans aren't "opposed to Network Neutrality". They're opposed to using a broken fix that will break things further.
As I've been saying for years (often on slashdot):
- Treating all packets the same breaks things (because TCP will ramp up until it eats streaming.)
- The real issue is not "non-neutrality", but several kinds of anticompetitve behavior by oligopolist ISPs (in vertically-integrated conglomerates with providers of services carried on their pipes.)
- The right fix is to move the issue from the FCC (with its technical bent and cluelessness about competition and market issues) to the FTC (which has a big hammer and is not afraid to use it on big companies).
- This will just require a minor tweak (to convince the FTC that they're hot banned from going after internet-related companies, and perhaps another to insure they can afford to do so).
The Trump administration is the first one that sees things the same way. (Try actually READING what Ajit Pai has said.)
= = = =
Now if they only do HALF of it - slap down the FCC but not sick the FTC onto the problem - THEN you'll have the problem so many slashdotters are wringing their hands over. (That would be like California's experiment with moving the nonviolent mentally-ill out of asylums to outpatient treatment - then doing only the first half, resulting in the start of the "homelessness problem".)
But Trump's administration has a STRONG incentive to do both halves: The mainstream news media have treated him very badly - and they're parts of the same vertically integrated conglomerates as the ISPs. FTC action against anticompetitive ISP practices could easily result in a breakup of each of the handful of vertically-integrated conglomerates in question and/or other penalties, causing their pocketbooks commensurate pain.
And a lot of that power is spent pumping out the heat from the lights. So if the lights result in less heat, the HVAC runs less and also uses less power. Win-win.
Except in Winter?
In winter, if you use resistive electric heat, it's a wash. Whatever you saved on waste heat you paid for in extra HVAC heat.
But if you use heat-pump electric heat with an EER of 3.3 you get about 2/3s of the savings. With an EER of 10 you get 90% of it.
(Also: The EER of 3.3 I used earlier for HVAC cooling is low for modern equipment, which can run 10 or better. And it varies with the outside temperature.)
But you're using fuel-burning heat it's probably a LOT cheaper than electric. So you get the savings on the light power and only pay a pittance replacing the lower losses.
And if you have solar heat (or other renewable sources) it's free - just a matter of having enough collection.
For fully R.E. facilities getting the (post-carnot-cycle high-quality) electric energy is the tough and pricey (in capital equipment) item, while raw heat is easy and cheap. So cutting the electric demand to the bone - which LED lamps do for illumination - is definitely the way to go.
This is 2019, not 1991, nobody has a house full of 75 watt or higher bulbs, they have all burned out and we were all forced to buy crappy CFL's then finally usable LED's
Depends. I still have a bunch in service at the ranch - because we hadn't been out there enough to burn them out yet.
Also: CFLs are only 4x, not 10x, better than incandescents. So there's still a lot to gain (drop your lighting and lighting-related HVAC costs to about 40% of their current value) by switching from CFLs to current LEDs.
And LEDs have gotten close enough to perfect in the last couple years that their rapid improvement is tapering off, so there's no point in waiting around. You might get another 2x improvement by the time the current ones die but there probably isn't another 4x improvement available for a long time, if ever.
Your HVAC is the big energy consumer in your house.
And a lot of that power is spent pumping out the heat from the lights. So if the lights result in less heat, the HVAC runs less and also uses less power. Win-win.
Standard incandescents run about 2.2% efficiency. So for one unit of light energy they burn over 45 units of power. It all ends up as heat for the HVAC to pump out on cooling days.
Modern LEDs run about 1/10th the power for a given amount of light. (The 1/5th of TFA is a couple years out of date.) Cutting your lighting power by a factor of 10 is a lot. (LEDs are now only a couple more doublings from emitting nothing but the light, with no waste.)
While cooling your lights is only part of an HVAC's work, it's a BIG part. (A resting person, for instance, only emits about 75 watts of heat, so even a single table lamp may be loading the HVAC more than a person.) That part is reduced proportion to the reduction in the heat from the lighting . HVACs in cooling mode have an Energy Efficiency Ratio in the ballpark of 3.3. So for every three watts of power you save on your lights, you save about another watt on HVAC power on cooling days.
S
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
But for those who really wonder about this:
I thought we should all be driving electric cars because they where emission free... So how does using more electricity for light bulbs create pollution when charging my car doesn't?
Electric cars are emission free where they operate, but fuel-driven power plants that make the electricity to charge them, of course, are not.
However: Fuel-driven power plants can run hotter and scavenge better, resulting in a lot less pollution than the engine that must be carried by an internal-combustion car. (Also, you have to burn more fuel to carry it around. It, with its powertrain, is a lot heavier than the batteries and electric motors of an electric vehicle.)
For those concerned about carbon output, stationary power plants CAN also use less polluting fuels (such as natural gas) than the liquids suitable for mobile use (without a heavy pressure tank). Modern fast-charge battery packs have little charge/discharge loss (or they'd melt, so they wouldn't be fast-charge B-) ). Even with the grid losses you end up with less total pollution from operation with electric cars.
Another factor is that the pollution is emitted at the power plant, rather than in crowded traffic. (This is yet another source of enmity between the urban and rural populations, as the latter may view the city people as exporting their pollution to the country people's back yards.)
I recall (decades ago, in a "popular" (electronics or whatever) magazine, an eddy-current "fishing magnet" for picking up non-magnetic conductive things (like coins-in-a-fountain):
- Cylindrical wooden frame. (Anything non-conductive would do) With screw eye or the like at the top.
- cylinder of strips of transformer core iron.
- central core of ditto.
- Stack of three thick copper washers in the gap between them, at the "business end", STRONGLY screwed to the frame (because otherwise the AC mag field would throw them across the room FAST - like through the drywall).
- Coil driven by AC around the whole "can".
Induces a very strong current loops in the copper washers - and any other conductor near the gap between the co-axial central and outer shell of transformer iron. Though the field tries to push the conducto (coin or whatever) away, the pinch effect pulls it even more strongly toward the copper washer current loop, which is fixed to the device. So there's a strong net pull, and you can use it like a magnet on a rope to pick up nonmagnetic metals.