Also they have to fight the losing fab battle.... Other companies are just in the last few months getting their 32nm node and 28nm half-node production lines rolling out products to retail channels. Intel has their 22nm node process complete and is fabbing chips for retail release in a couple months.
However this technology lets AMD get rid of most of the clock drivers and most of their power consumption and waste heat. That means the rest of the logic can be pulled closer together in a given technology, speeding it up. It also means you can put more total logic on a chip before the heat limits you.
It wouldn't surprise me if this matches or beats being one generation behind on fabs.
Also: There's no substitute for low power drain in portable applications. Further, smaller feature size means higher leakage. This leaves Intel with TWO dings for the portable market.
Agreed [that it looks like vaporware]. It's a breathlessly ebullient press release sales pitch.
Agreed it's a sales pitch. But not vaporware at all. Very neat solution. (I saw another with similar properties a couple years ago but this one is 'way better.)
The issue is the power consumption of the clocking of the chip. Modern designs are primarily layers of D-type flip-flop registers separated by small amounts of random logic and all the flip flops are clocked simultaneously, all the time. The clock signal is input to ALL the flipflops and a bit of the random logic. I'm guessing somewhere between one in five and one in ten gate inputs are driven about equally by CLK or ~CLK. Further, the other signals flip between one and zero once, sometimes, on each cycle. ALL the CLK signals flip from zero to one and back to zero EVERY cycle. So there's a lot of activity on the clock.
In CMOS the load on the clock is primarily capacitave - the stray capacitance of the CMOS gates and wiring - plus some losses, mainly due to the resistance of the wiring. The stray capacitance has to be charged and discharged every cycle. The charge represents energy. In a conventional design the clock drivers are essentially the same thing as logic gates (inverters). New energy is supplied from the power supply (and about half of it, excluding signal-line resistive losses, dumped as heat in the pullup transistors of the drivers) every cycle as the lines are charged. Then the charge is dumped to ground (and the rest of the energy dumped as heat in the pulldown transistors). All that energy gets lost as heat every cycle, and it represents about 30% of the power consumed by the chip. It would be nice to scavenge it and reuse most of it for the next tick.
A previous invention used a half-wave transmission line looped around the chip and connected plus-to-minus. A big mobius strip. The CLK and ~CLK loads acted as distributed capacitance around the transmission line. A clock waveform circulated continuously, twice per cycle. Instead of a sea of drivers providing new energy and then throwing it away every cycle, the transmission ring had a few drivers distributed around it, keeping the wave circulating and correctly formed, and pumping in enough energy to replace the resistive losses while the bulk of the energy went round-and-round. Result: Most of the clock power requirements and heating load go away.
Unfortunately, the circulating clock wave meant the region completing a computation ALSO went round-and-round, rather than everything switching at the same time. Stock design tools assume CLK/~CLK is simultaneous (except for minor variations) across the whole chip. So using that earlier system would require a major rewrite on the stock tools and new design methodologies.
THIS system does a similar hack energetically, but with everything in sync. Instead of a sea of drivers driven by a carefully-balanced tree of pre-drivers, the CLK and ~CLK are constructed as a pair of heavy-conductor meshes - like two stacked layers of flattened-out window screens. These form two plates of a capacitor. These plates are connected by an inductor, forming a resonant "tank circuit". When this is "pumped up" by a few drivers and is "ringing", energy alternates between being an electric field between the screens and a magnetic field in the inductor coil, twice (once for each polarity) each cycle. Again the bulk of the energy is reused over and over while the drivers only have to replace the (mostly) resistive losses (and pump it up initially, over a number of cycles). Again the bulk of the clock power and heating is gone. But this time the whole chip is switching essentially simultaneously, so the stock design tools just work.
Neat!
Downside (of both inventions): You can't quickly start and stop the clock in a given area or run it more than a few percent off the speed set by the resonance of the tank circuit or transmission line. No overclocking. Also no clock gating to save power on quiesc
How do you hide something unreadable within something readable?... damn, you're going to make me RTFA, aren't you?:P
As I read the blurb (I have no inside knowledge) they're not making the PAYLOAD look unencrypted. They're circumventing the type-of-flow identification mechanisms built into router filtering by encapsulating the encrypted data within an outer layer (and addressed to the port of) another protocol. (They may even have put a layer on top of the existing service so that, unless it identifies the flow as an encapsulated TOR flow, it actually PERFORMS the service.)
The result would be that, if they intercept the flow and try to parse it as what it purports to be, it may not make sense. But if their router look at the parts of the packets that are characteristic of what the flow purports to be, it will identify it as normal traffic and let it through. And if the router tries doing something like a keyword search through the bodies of the packets it won't get hits because the bodies are encrypted.
You can use this approach with any protocol that can handle the traffic patters of a TOR connection (possibly with added padding packets to make the characteristics look more like the purported flow).
Downsides might be:
1) If you do a masked TOR only server on the port they might try to connect to the purported flow and detect that this server is not what it seems.
2) If you do a diverting pancake you need a way to flag for the pancake that this is the masked TOR flow. If that's well known they might write a filter for it. (Eric Wustrow, Scott Wolchok, Ian Goldberg, and J. Alex Halderman have developed a steganographic method for applying such a tag. It is embedded in their own "TELEX" network-based firewall bypasser but might be adapted to this purpose. paper a href="https://telex.cc/"code")
A Republican administration is somewhat more likely to start a war,
Actually, Democratic administrations are more likely to start wars (though with the imperialistic Neocons the Republicans have run lately the difference isn't as great as it once was). Democrats are both clueless about how violent conflict works and prone to incrementalism. The latter avoids "Schelling points" where the frog jumps out of the heating pot. This is very effective for incrementally imposing their will on a population already under control. But when applied to war it leads to doctrines like "proportional response". This leaves the enemy with no logical time to surrender, even if he WANTS to, leading to continuous escalation and disasters like Vietnam.
But that's not germane to Ron Paul., who should NOT be lumped with generic Republicans. He's a constitutionalist of the "liberty wing". His foreign policy is "no entangling alliances" his strategy "Bring the troops home unless war is DECLARED. If war IS declared, achieve the stated target and STOP."... and a good deal more likely to adopt policies that will increase our deficit (cutting taxes "permanently" w/o cutting spending, in particular,...
And Ron Paul is again not in the same lump as the rest of the Republicans. He's an Austrian School economist. For the last THIRTY YEARS he's been preaching that the problem is really government SPENDING diverting resources from productive effort, not the details of how the resources are diverted.
PLEASE don't lump Paul in with "the Republicans". As The Muppets might sing: "One of these men is different from the others...". Take a look at his actual positions and voting record before sounding off against all Republicans.
(It should be noted that the Liberty movement has positions in common with, and positions opposed to, EACH of the major parties, in about equal proportion. Because of the major party advantage, Ron chose to try to work within one of the parties rather than outside both (though he DID run for president with the Libertarians at one point). He picked the Republicans because his hottest button was economic and the Republican lip-service position was closer to what he considered correct and necessary. Getting the Rs to live up to their rhetoric was perceived as more likely to succed than turning the Ds around.)
Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen... there is no transfer of property. We need to... get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.
The companies doing the reporting are also the companies who own the "content" that is being "stolen" (or "copied without purchase of the right to do so").
So I wouldn't bother spending any effort trying to get them to change their language to be more accurate (but less accusatory).
Sweet - get the TSA in there to feel up all the big, hairy, stoked-up sports fans with facepaint and a few six-packs already down the hatch
"Feel up"? Don't you mean "irradiate"? G-ray scanner capable of looking through inches of steel isn't too safe for gonads. Especially if they don't shut down the source if traffic gets tied up in front of it.
If most of 'em weren't already past breeding age it might make a nontrivial improvement in the nerd/jock ratio of upcoming generations.
(Yes, yes, I know they said it was for use on cargo vehicles. But if operated with the usual competence level of government projects...)
The whole argument from your link about it not being as lethal as H5N1 is pure speculation - as he admits, we don't know transmissibility of the strain in humans, because we won't do that experiment.
Right. But the expectation is that the mutations the virus makes, in the process of improving their ability to infect the new non-human host, typically reduce their ability to infect humans. Not necessarily true, of course. But more likely than not.
Even if the new host is "closer to us" on the evolutionary tree, immune systems and cell-surface viral targets are about the fastest evolving (and diverging) parts of the genome. If they'd done this with primates as the target I'd worry. But (absent some research showing that the hemagglutinin targets on ferrets are especially similar to those in primates) I wouldn't worry lay odds that hops from birds to ferrets might make the virus more dangerous, rather than less dangerous or unchanged, when it comes to people.
As I understand it the original research was into finding out how the virus does/might hop species. That's something that does need to be researched. Even if it might make something that you REALLY don't want to escape as a side effect.
Meanwhile the fact of what they're up to and how they did it IS a cat out of the bag, even if the particular two residues that changed isn't yet published. Absent stealing the resulting virus from the lab, a potential bioterrorist would probably be ahead doing his own make-it-hop experiments using something antigenically closer to humans than he would getting the info on THIS thing's sequence and trying to hack the genome of the wild strain to match.
IMO every one of the Republican nominees are pretty damned creepy,...
Have you actually LOOKED at Ron Paul 's positions and voting record (rather than the Lamestream Media's smears)?
At any rate, we have no good choices. I'll probably vote Green or Libbie anyway, just because I find it incredibly stupid to vote for anyone who wants to put you, some of your friends, or members of your family in prison.
When both major parties hand you lemons, who cares which one wins? The only way to make your vote count is to send a message for next time around. Voting for (or writing in) a minor candidate says "Here's a vote you COULD have had if you hadn't run such a turkey." Voting for one with a position on his keynote issues is close to your position on YOUR important issues says "And here's what's important to me and which way to change to get my vote next time."
(I note that Ron Paul's position on the drug war is to end the federal part of it - which is all he'd have influence over. The drug war is mainly driven by the fed and pushed onto the states, so returning the issue to the states would essentially kill it - or at least both give you a smaller job to finish it off where you live and a number of safe havens.)
You may vote for ponies, but what you're getting is a kitten or a puppy.
Given the cart that needs pulling to get out of the quicksand, I'll vote for the pony.
The Republicans can't win the general election without the Ron Paul supporters and they know it. And polling indicates that at LEAST half of the Paulistas will NOT vote for any of the other members of the Republican field, considering them at least as much of a problem as Obama. (Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney poll as potentially winning against O. And in the general campaign Romney can expect to lose ground due to his history while Ron can expect to GAIN ground - especially among independents and anti-war Democrats - as more people are exposed to his politics.)
When both sides hand you a disaster candidate who cares who wins? The only way to NOT waste your vote is to use it to send a message for the next time around:
- Voting for a minor party candidate (or writing in a candidate not on a major party ticket) says "Here's a vote you could have had if you hadn't run such a turkey."
- Voting for the candidate whose position on his highlighted issues is closest to your own on YOUR important issues says "And here's what's important to me and which way you need to change to get my vote next time."
Republicans have sacrificed virtue for "electability" as have the Democrats. So rather than voting in the primary for people who really represent their beliefs, they vote for someone who is "electable"...
The mathematical psychologists - as far back as the 1960s - had a term for this "Dishonest Voter". It referred to someone who, rather than voting for the candidate closest to his own position, voted for the closest within the constraint of perceived electability. It played HELL with the mathematical models.
... in the process getting someone who doesn't represent their beliefs at all.
This is why it's a bad strategy.
An example of how it can go wrong is the replacement of California's recalled governor (Gray Davis) in 2003. Jim McClintock would have made about the ideal rein-in-the-government Republican candidate. But his name recognition was a bit low. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race. A LOT of Republican voters switched because of his name recognition advantage and the perception that McClintock might not be able to win - which became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Arnold became "The Gubernator", self-admittedly JUST on name recognition. Later polling showed that McClintock WOULD have had enough votes to win handily had Arnold not entered the race.
It turns out that Arnold was one of the most extreme RINOs in existence. He was nominally a Republican because he'd been very impressed by Nixon as a new immigrant from Austria (perceiving him as anti-socialist in the Nixon-Humphrey debates). But he married into the Kennedy family (Maria Shriver) and acquired political connections and advisors (and ambitions) through them. It was noticed at the Inauguration that virtually everybody on the VIP platform was a noted Democrat. He appointed a Democrat as his chief of staff. Faced with a solidly Democratic legislature (thanks to a combination of a leftist-majority urban population and gerrymandering) he submitted a few government-cutting proposals to voters as initiatives. When these failed he threw in the towel and became a generic Democrat-equivalent California governor for the remainder of his term limit.
As I understand it, the explosion of the Krakatoa volcano was a steam explosion, caused by high-pressure ocean water coming into contact with lava deep underground, with the only way to release the pressure being to push the mountain into the air. The result was the loudest sound ever recorded: It was detectable on barographs world-wide.
The details of mountain explosions were something of a mystery until an "AHA!" moment produced by a heroic seismologist. He was too close to Mount St. Helens when the explosion finally occurred. So he took a series of shots of the process with his camera, then wrapped it in his spare clothing and backpack so it would survive the shock, flying debris, and pyroclastic ash flow (which he, of course, did not). Stitched together the shots formed a jerkey movie which clearly explained the mechanism:
Extreme pressure under the volcano (in this case volcanic gas) gradually raises the dome, with resulting faulting and shocks. Eventually one side of the mountain collapses in a landslide. This removes a LOT of weight very suddenly. The remaining weight is entirely inadequate to restrain the gas pressure which, in addition to expanding in all directions as a shock wave, blasts the rest of the mountain into dust and lofts it into the upper atmosphere.
Pressure injection wells produce earthquakes by turning areas the size of counties into the large piston of a hydraulic jack, pushing apart and lubricating faults. Enough pressure cracks the rock, producing additional faults to be "jacked open".
The potential problem from doing this with water is that it can suddenly open a passage and bathe a lot of lava-hot rock, suddenly and drastically heating and expanding the water AND increasing the size of the "large piston". If it can't make it back out through the injection well, make it out through a new geyser, or relieve its own pressure faster than it rises by jacking open the ground, it might create a Krakatoa version of the Mount Saint Hellens scenario.
I hope the engineers have calculated for this scenario and determined that it isn't plausible and/or designed adequate pressure relief to take into account things like earth movements simultaneously shoving a slug of water against a lava face and blocking some avenues of its retreat.
Why would it have to be more complicated than the magnetic patch antennas used with satellite phones?
A patch antenna is not a phased array. It has a broad, roughly conical, pattern, has one feed point (or two for circular polarization), is not electronically steered, and so does not require a large number of independently phased drives or a similar number of phase-switching components. It's a passive, single-pattern antenna - like the horn in a dish or a rubber duckie on a land-based cellphone.
Like the land-based cellphone system, things like Iridium depend on only one or a very small number of the constellation of satellite "cells" being in range of a given phone at a time. The phone only chews up time/frequency/spreading-function slots in a handfull of satellites at a time. Given the low data rate, eating a slot in several sats is acceptable.
For high-speed internet it's another case. The higher bandwidth means you need a better signal-to-noise ratio or higher power. And it also means you don't want to chew up several times your allotment by shouting at all the satellites that are above horizon at a time. So a steerable antenna on the ground station is likely to be necessary when the system is fully deployed and starting to push saturation.
Now you might get away with patch antennas INITIALLY and maybe for low-bandwidth emergency uplinks even when fully deployed. But deploying with near-omnidirectional antennas and high-power remote terminals, when you'll have to switch out your deployed base's equipment in a couple years if your system succeeds, is a poor business plan.
Regardless of whether patch antennas will do or phased-array antennas are needed from day one, the original question was essentially "why not phased arrays". That was what I addressed.
Bush, Obama, Romney. It no longer matters who you vote for, they are all owned.
You forgot Ron Paul. Voting for the Constitutional position for decades. Often as the only vote against some usurpation (leading to the informal title "Dr No!".)
Ron Paul argued against this bill (though he did not interrupt his presidential campaign to cast a house vote against it - which would have been purely symbolic given the landslide). His son Rand was one of only 17 senators to vote against it.
A phased array antenna is substantially more expensive to make than a dish-and-horn. More electronics in it, and in particular more PIECES, which means more pick-and-place time.
Economy of scale might bring it town to something comparable a couple years into a big deployment. But it will still cost a bunch extra at first - which is when you are trying to recover startup costs and simultaneously underbid the competition. And then you need a bunch of satellites rather than one or two.
So a new player would find itself in a position similar to Iridium vs. the carriers' cell-site networks, trying to recover the costs of a constellation of LEO satellites and custom consumer bricks from the revenue of a niche market (when a GEOsat competitor sells/leases cheaper bricks and flies 'way fewer birds.)
I... somewhat in between "MIT Certification" and "Internet-U Certification". They're trying to walk a line of ensuring that the regular MIT degree programs are differentiated, while still leveraging the MIT name to distinguish the online course from just any random online course.
So when can we get degrees from an accredited university via online work? Or even course credit that is accepted by other accredited degree-granting schools (accepted either "at all" or "without jumping through extra hoops").
I don't care if MIT wants to spin off a subsidiary with a distinct name and reputation if they think online students are enough iffier that they'd dilute the main brand. But for getting past modern HR departments you need the real thing to check the "degree X or foreign equivalent" box, and you need to check that box to keep the resume out of the round file.
Yes I know there are a few other universities that do offer such now. But MIT seems to be just dipping its toes in the water rather than jumping in. In the process they seem likely to reduce their "certification"'s usability to the wall decoration and hobbyist satisfaction level.
Some decades ago there were fine, prestigious, correspondence-schooling programs available for people living and working in remote areas who wanted to continue their education. Most of the people who built railroad steam engines, for instance, had degrees from the International Correspondence Schools (ICS - which still exists). The "electronic frontier" has many of the same characteristics - including especially people with remote locations, educational needs, and adequate communication to fulfill them IF suitable institutions exist to service them.
It's good that MIT is trying to fill the need - but it's unfortunate that they appear to be only playing at it.
Over the last several years I warned the Silicon Valley hi-tech networking company I was at that they were a prime target for a spear-phishing attack from both China (to steal their IP for their Chinese competitor) and from the malware industry (which was turning from attacks on the leaves to attacks on the network infrastructure machines). And during this time the conglomerate that ate us switched the engineers' machines from Linux to Windows, destroyed the internal IT department, and outsourced network management to an external supplier. (In a networking company, no less. We WERE the relevant experts. B-b ) And the external supplier "upgraded" us to machines with built-in remote administration backdoors in the firmware of the networking cards.
I want to see if the company in question is on the list, and what happened to it, so I can give them a big "I TOLD YOU SO".
One mentioned in TFA is HP. I'd like to know what division is in question. One of HP's divisions is just such a supplier of outsourced IT administration, which moves much of their clients' functionality (including, especially, email and authentication services) to their own servers. If that department got compromised the list may be far longer than 760, because all their clients may have been compromised by that single attack. (Same is true if any of the several other such providers got hit.)
1) It was rebuilt with a lot of financial aid from the US - mainly from corporations.
2) Stalin killed off more of the Soviet Union's people than Hitler did. If you kill off enough people - like several million - there's enough food to go around for the rest. (This worked in China, too.)
Yeah, like the interstate highway system. Boy, they made out like bandits on that one.
Yep. A lot of nephews and cousins of politicians (and members of their political machines) "won" the construction contracts and made out like bandits.
Still are, too. Especially with large amounts of gas tax money diverted from road construction to "alternative transport" projects to "get people out of their cars". Lots of graft to go around there.
Also, without some kind of "peaking store" you'd need an enormous fuel cell to handle the short high-acceleration periods such as starting from a dead stop.
With a peaking store (such as batteries or a flywheel) and regenerative braking you only need to handle the uphill cruising load, with regenerative braking plus charging while "idling" before the start or restart handling the higher loads of variable speed operation.
You're talking about a factor of fifteen or so in fuel cell size and weight, nearly that in construction expense, wasted fuel from keeping it hot rather than shutting it off as soon as the batteries are fully charged, and exhaust gasses in the garage.
(You'll probably want to keep it hot unless the car will be idle for a week or more, to avoid damage from thermal cycling and a resulting shortening of its service life. In essence that means it's always burning "idling" fuel unless you've mothballed it while on vacation.)
The Modern day AT&T is a reformation of the bulk of the old AT&T, albeit with management lead by one of the more ethically challenged corners rather than from the original top.
Sorta like the T-1000 in Terminator II.
The courts smashed AT&T into a bunch of little pieces, which rolled around like big balls of mercury each doing their own thing. Once the antitrust restrictions timed out, the balls began to merge. When enough of them had merged the resulting blob reshaped itself into something resembling (but somewhat different from) the original structure.
If the original is male you can construct a female by duplicating the X and removing the Y. The female will likely be viable since the male was and there are very few genes on the Y.
Both will be heterozygous for many genes. Breeding them for a few generations will likely eliminate the detrimental recessives and produce a viable nearly-all-homozygous "purebread", assuming none of the genes actually require two alleles for viability. You may have a rather high rate of miscarriages and defects for a while but it shouldn't take very long.
Once you have a viable purebread and a niche it fits you can go many generations with essentially no diversity at all. (Cheetahs are doing this now.) The main problem is lack of immune system diversity: A bug that kills one of 'em is likely to kill most of 'em. (Secondary problem is difficulty moving into a new niche if the old one dries up. But that's not an issue for what would amount to a zoo animal.)
Regardless, once you've got a breeding pair that is producing viable offspring, you've got many generations of leeway to find and incorporate more DNA and restore a more robust level of diversity. (Unlike the initial clones, the DNA need not be from a completely intact genome, or even an intact chromosome. So it's easier to find.) Elephant generations are about 25 years (compared with 30 to 35 for humans) so there's no big rush.
Oxygen concentration cells work off anything that eats oxygen when it burns (and doesn't poison the fuel cell - which very few things do) and which is physically compatible with the fuel feed infrastructure.
For a cell designed for liquid fuels that's liquid hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel fuel, salad oil, liquid fat,...), alcohols, and just about any other liquid fuel. If it also handles gas you can also use propane, hydrogen (if your plumbing is up to it), etc. Use a good enough feed system and you can run it on solid fuels, too.
I want one that eats stove pellets. B-) You can make those out of any plant waste: sawdust, lawn clippings, stalks of food plants, weeds,... Or shred and pelletize your junk mail.
Slashdot Mirror
Also they have to fight the losing fab battle. ... Other companies are just in the last few months getting their 32nm node and 28nm half-node production lines rolling out products to retail channels. Intel has their 22nm node process complete and is fabbing chips for retail release in a couple months.
However this technology lets AMD get rid of most of the clock drivers and most of their power consumption and waste heat. That means the rest of the logic can be pulled closer together in a given technology, speeding it up. It also means you can put more total logic on a chip before the heat limits you.
It wouldn't surprise me if this matches or beats being one generation behind on fabs.
Also: There's no substitute for low power drain in portable applications. Further, smaller feature size means higher leakage. This leaves Intel with TWO dings for the portable market.
Agreed [that it looks like vaporware]. It's a breathlessly ebullient press release sales pitch.
Agreed it's a sales pitch. But not vaporware at all. Very neat solution. (I saw another with similar properties a couple years ago but this one is 'way better.)
The issue is the power consumption of the clocking of the chip. Modern designs are primarily layers of D-type flip-flop registers separated by small amounts of random logic and all the flip flops are clocked simultaneously, all the time. The clock signal is input to ALL the flipflops and a bit of the random logic. I'm guessing somewhere between one in five and one in ten gate inputs are driven about equally by CLK or ~CLK. Further, the other signals flip between one and zero once, sometimes, on each cycle. ALL the CLK signals flip from zero to one and back to zero EVERY cycle. So there's a lot of activity on the clock.
In CMOS the load on the clock is primarily capacitave - the stray capacitance of the CMOS gates and wiring - plus some losses, mainly due to the resistance of the wiring. The stray capacitance has to be charged and discharged every cycle. The charge represents energy. In a conventional design the clock drivers are essentially the same thing as logic gates (inverters). New energy is supplied from the power supply (and about half of it, excluding signal-line resistive losses, dumped as heat in the pullup transistors of the drivers) every cycle as the lines are charged. Then the charge is dumped to ground (and the rest of the energy dumped as heat in the pulldown transistors). All that energy gets lost as heat every cycle, and it represents about 30% of the power consumed by the chip. It would be nice to scavenge it and reuse most of it for the next tick.
A previous invention used a half-wave transmission line looped around the chip and connected plus-to-minus. A big mobius strip. The CLK and ~CLK loads acted as distributed capacitance around the transmission line. A clock waveform circulated continuously, twice per cycle. Instead of a sea of drivers providing new energy and then throwing it away every cycle, the transmission ring had a few drivers distributed around it, keeping the wave circulating and correctly formed, and pumping in enough energy to replace the resistive losses while the bulk of the energy went round-and-round. Result: Most of the clock power requirements and heating load go away.
Unfortunately, the circulating clock wave meant the region completing a computation ALSO went round-and-round, rather than everything switching at the same time. Stock design tools assume CLK/~CLK is simultaneous (except for minor variations) across the whole chip. So using that earlier system would require a major rewrite on the stock tools and new design methodologies.
THIS system does a similar hack energetically, but with everything in sync. Instead of a sea of drivers driven by a carefully-balanced tree of pre-drivers, the CLK and ~CLK are constructed as a pair of heavy-conductor meshes - like two stacked layers of flattened-out window screens. These form two plates of a capacitor. These plates are connected by an inductor, forming a resonant "tank circuit". When this is "pumped up" by a few drivers and is "ringing", energy alternates between being an electric field between the screens and a magnetic field in the inductor coil, twice (once for each polarity) each cycle. Again the bulk of the energy is reused over and over while the drivers only have to replace the (mostly) resistive losses (and pump it up initially, over a number of cycles). Again the bulk of the clock power and heating is gone. But this time the whole chip is switching essentially simultaneously, so the stock design tools just work.
Neat!
Downside (of both inventions): You can't quickly start and stop the clock in a given area or run it more than a few percent off the speed set by the resonance of the tank circuit or transmission line. No overclocking. Also no clock gating to save power on quiesc
The correct formulations are "one of the few" (for an indeterminant number) and "one of only N" (if the number is known).
I would REALLY appreciate it if the editors would fix this in submitted stories.
How do you hide something unreadable within something readable? ... damn, you're going to make me RTFA, aren't you? :P
As I read the blurb (I have no inside knowledge) they're not making the PAYLOAD look unencrypted. They're circumventing the type-of-flow identification mechanisms built into router filtering by encapsulating the encrypted data within an outer layer (and addressed to the port of) another protocol. (They may even have put a layer on top of the existing service so that, unless it identifies the flow as an encapsulated TOR flow, it actually PERFORMS the service.)
The result would be that, if they intercept the flow and try to parse it as what it purports to be, it may not make sense. But if their router look at the parts of the packets that are characteristic of what the flow purports to be, it will identify it as normal traffic and let it through. And if the router tries doing something like a keyword search through the bodies of the packets it won't get hits because the bodies are encrypted.
You can use this approach with any protocol that can handle the traffic patters of a TOR connection (possibly with added padding packets to make the characteristics look more like the purported flow).
Downsides might be:
1) If you do a masked TOR only server on the port they might try to connect to the purported flow and detect that this server is not what it seems.
2) If you do a diverting pancake you need a way to flag for the pancake that this is the masked TOR flow. If that's well known they might write a filter for it. (Eric Wustrow, Scott Wolchok, Ian Goldberg, and J. Alex Halderman have developed a steganographic method for applying such a tag. It is embedded in their own "TELEX" network-based firewall bypasser but might be adapted to this purpose. paper a href="https://telex.cc/"code")
A Republican administration is somewhat more likely to start a war,
Actually, Democratic administrations are more likely to start wars (though with the imperialistic Neocons the Republicans have run lately the difference isn't as great as it once was). Democrats are both clueless about how violent conflict works and prone to incrementalism. The latter avoids "Schelling points" where the frog jumps out of the heating pot. This is very effective for incrementally imposing their will on a population already under control. But when applied to war it leads to doctrines like "proportional response". This leaves the enemy with no logical time to surrender, even if he WANTS to, leading to continuous escalation and disasters like Vietnam.
But that's not germane to Ron Paul., who should NOT be lumped with generic Republicans. He's a constitutionalist of the "liberty wing". His foreign policy is "no entangling alliances" his strategy "Bring the troops home unless war is DECLARED. If war IS declared, achieve the stated target and STOP." ... and a good deal more likely to adopt policies that will increase our deficit (cutting taxes "permanently" w/o cutting spending, in particular, ...
And Ron Paul is again not in the same lump as the rest of the Republicans. He's an Austrian School economist. For the last THIRTY YEARS he's been preaching that the problem is really government SPENDING diverting resources from productive effort, not the details of how the resources are diverted.
PLEASE don't lump Paul in with "the Republicans". As The Muppets might sing: "One of these men is different from the others ...". Take a look at his actual positions and voting record before sounding off against all Republicans.
(It should be noted that the Liberty movement has positions in common with, and positions opposed to, EACH of the major parties, in about equal proportion. Because of the major party advantage, Ron chose to try to work within one of the parties rather than outside both (though he DID run for president with the Libertarians at one point). He picked the Republicans because his hottest button was economic and the Republican lip-service position was closer to what he considered correct and necessary. Getting the Rs to live up to their rhetoric was perceived as more likely to succed than turning the Ds around.)
Unless the USB keys themselves were stolen ... there is no transfer of property. We need to ... get the media to start correcting ridiculous statements.
The companies doing the reporting are also the companies who own the "content" that is being "stolen" (or "copied without purchase of the right to do so").
So I wouldn't bother spending any effort trying to get them to change their language to be more accurate (but less accusatory).
Sweet - get the TSA in there to feel up all the big, hairy, stoked-up sports fans with facepaint and a few six-packs already down the hatch
"Feel up"? Don't you mean "irradiate"? G-ray scanner capable of looking through inches of steel isn't too safe for gonads. Especially if they don't shut down the source if traffic gets tied up in front of it.
If most of 'em weren't already past breeding age it might make a nontrivial improvement in the nerd/jock ratio of upcoming generations.
(Yes, yes, I know they said it was for use on cargo vehicles. But if operated with the usual competence level of government projects ...)
The whole argument from your link about it not being as lethal as H5N1 is pure speculation - as he admits, we don't know transmissibility of the strain in humans, because we won't do that experiment.
Right. But the expectation is that the mutations the virus makes, in the process of improving their ability to infect the new non-human host, typically reduce their ability to infect humans. Not necessarily true, of course. But more likely than not.
Even if the new host is "closer to us" on the evolutionary tree, immune systems and cell-surface viral targets are about the fastest evolving (and diverging) parts of the genome. If they'd done this with primates as the target I'd worry. But (absent some research showing that the hemagglutinin targets on ferrets are especially similar to those in primates) I wouldn't worry lay odds that hops from birds to ferrets might make the virus more dangerous, rather than less dangerous or unchanged, when it comes to people.
As I understand it the original research was into finding out how the virus does/might hop species. That's something that does need to be researched. Even if it might make something that you REALLY don't want to escape as a side effect.
Meanwhile the fact of what they're up to and how they did it IS a cat out of the bag, even if the particular two residues that changed isn't yet published. Absent stealing the resulting virus from the lab, a potential bioterrorist would probably be ahead doing his own make-it-hop experiments using something antigenically closer to humans than he would getting the info on THIS thing's sequence and trying to hack the genome of the wild strain to match.
IMO every one of the Republican nominees are pretty damned creepy, ...
Have you actually LOOKED at Ron Paul 's positions and voting record (rather than the Lamestream Media's smears)?
At any rate, we have no good choices. I'll probably vote Green or Libbie anyway, just because I find it incredibly stupid to vote for anyone who wants to put you, some of your friends, or members of your family in prison.
When both major parties hand you lemons, who cares which one wins? The only way to make your vote count is to send a message for next time around. Voting for (or writing in) a minor candidate says "Here's a vote you COULD have had if you hadn't run such a turkey." Voting for one with a position on his keynote issues is close to your position on YOUR important issues says "And here's what's important to me and which way to change to get my vote next time."
(I note that Ron Paul's position on the drug war is to end the federal part of it - which is all he'd have influence over. The drug war is mainly driven by the fed and pushed onto the states, so returning the issue to the states would essentially kill it - or at least both give you a smaller job to finish it off where you live and a number of safe havens.)
You may vote for ponies, but what you're getting is a kitten or a puppy.
Given the cart that needs pulling to get out of the quicksand, I'll vote for the pony.
The Republicans can't win the general election without the Ron Paul supporters and they know it. And polling indicates that at LEAST half of the Paulistas will NOT vote for any of the other members of the Republican field, considering them at least as much of a problem as Obama. (Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney poll as potentially winning against O. And in the general campaign Romney can expect to lose ground due to his history while Ron can expect to GAIN ground - especially among independents and anti-war Democrats - as more people are exposed to his politics.)
When both sides hand you a disaster candidate who cares who wins? The only way to NOT waste your vote is to use it to send a message for the next time around:
- Voting for a minor party candidate (or writing in a candidate not on a major party ticket) says "Here's a vote you could have had if you hadn't run such a turkey."
- Voting for the candidate whose position on his highlighted issues is closest to your own on YOUR important issues says "And here's what's important to me and which way you need to change to get my vote next time."
Republicans have sacrificed virtue for "electability" as have the Democrats. So rather than voting in the primary for people who really represent their beliefs, they vote for someone who is "electable" ...
The mathematical psychologists - as far back as the 1960s - had a term for this "Dishonest Voter". It referred to someone who, rather than voting for the candidate closest to his own position, voted for the closest within the constraint of perceived electability. It played HELL with the mathematical models.
This is why it's a bad strategy.
An example of how it can go wrong is the replacement of California's recalled governor (Gray Davis) in 2003. Jim McClintock would have made about the ideal rein-in-the-government Republican candidate. But his name recognition was a bit low. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race. A LOT of Republican voters switched because of his name recognition advantage and the perception that McClintock might not be able to win - which became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Arnold became "The Gubernator", self-admittedly JUST on name recognition. Later polling showed that McClintock WOULD have had enough votes to win handily had Arnold not entered the race.
It turns out that Arnold was one of the most extreme RINOs in existence. He was nominally a Republican because he'd been very impressed by Nixon as a new immigrant from Austria (perceiving him as anti-socialist in the Nixon-Humphrey debates). But he married into the Kennedy family (Maria Shriver) and acquired political connections and advisors (and ambitions) through them. It was noticed at the Inauguration that virtually everybody on the VIP platform was a noted Democrat. He appointed a Democrat as his chief of staff. Faced with a solidly Democratic legislature (thanks to a combination of a leftist-majority urban population and gerrymandering) he submitted a few government-cutting proposals to voters as initiatives. When these failed he threw in the towel and became a generic Democrat-equivalent California governor for the remainder of his term limit.
What could possibly go wrong . . .
One word: Krakatoa.
Three more: Mount Saint Hellens
As I understand it, the explosion of the Krakatoa volcano was a steam explosion, caused by high-pressure ocean water coming into contact with lava deep underground, with the only way to release the pressure being to push the mountain into the air. The result was the loudest sound ever recorded: It was detectable on barographs world-wide.
The details of mountain explosions were something of a mystery until an "AHA!" moment produced by a heroic seismologist. He was too close to Mount St. Helens when the explosion finally occurred. So he took a series of shots of the process with his camera, then wrapped it in his spare clothing and backpack so it would survive the shock, flying debris, and pyroclastic ash flow (which he, of course, did not). Stitched together the shots formed a jerkey movie which clearly explained the mechanism:
Extreme pressure under the volcano (in this case volcanic gas) gradually raises the dome, with resulting faulting and shocks. Eventually one side of the mountain collapses in a landslide. This removes a LOT of weight very suddenly. The remaining weight is entirely inadequate to restrain the gas pressure which, in addition to expanding in all directions as a shock wave, blasts the rest of the mountain into dust and lofts it into the upper atmosphere.
Pressure injection wells produce earthquakes by turning areas the size of counties into the large piston of a hydraulic jack, pushing apart and lubricating faults. Enough pressure cracks the rock, producing additional faults to be "jacked open".
The potential problem from doing this with water is that it can suddenly open a passage and bathe a lot of lava-hot rock, suddenly and drastically heating and expanding the water AND increasing the size of the "large piston". If it can't make it back out through the injection well, make it out through a new geyser, or relieve its own pressure faster than it rises by jacking open the ground, it might create a Krakatoa version of the Mount Saint Hellens scenario.
I hope the engineers have calculated for this scenario and determined that it isn't plausible and/or designed adequate pressure relief to take into account things like earth movements simultaneously shoving a slug of water against a lava face and blocking some avenues of its retreat.
Why would it have to be more complicated than the magnetic patch antennas used with satellite phones?
A patch antenna is not a phased array. It has a broad, roughly conical, pattern, has one feed point (or two for circular polarization), is not electronically steered, and so does not require a large number of independently phased drives or a similar number of phase-switching components. It's a passive, single-pattern antenna - like the horn in a dish or a rubber duckie on a land-based cellphone.
Like the land-based cellphone system, things like Iridium depend on only one or a very small number of the constellation of satellite "cells" being in range of a given phone at a time. The phone only chews up time/frequency/spreading-function slots in a handfull of satellites at a time. Given the low data rate, eating a slot in several sats is acceptable.
For high-speed internet it's another case. The higher bandwidth means you need a better signal-to-noise ratio or higher power. And it also means you don't want to chew up several times your allotment by shouting at all the satellites that are above horizon at a time. So a steerable antenna on the ground station is likely to be necessary when the system is fully deployed and starting to push saturation.
Now you might get away with patch antennas INITIALLY and maybe for low-bandwidth emergency uplinks even when fully deployed. But deploying with near-omnidirectional antennas and high-power remote terminals, when you'll have to switch out your deployed base's equipment in a couple years if your system succeeds, is a poor business plan.
Regardless of whether patch antennas will do or phased-array antennas are needed from day one, the original question was essentially "why not phased arrays". That was what I addressed.
Make sense?
Bush, Obama, Romney.
It no longer matters who you vote for, they are all owned.
You forgot Ron Paul. Voting for the Constitutional position for decades. Often as the only vote against some usurpation (leading to the informal title "Dr No!".)
Ron Paul argued against this bill (though he did not interrupt his presidential campaign to cast a house vote against it - which would have been purely symbolic given the landslide). His son Rand was one of only 17 senators to vote against it.
A phased array antenna is substantially more expensive to make than a dish-and-horn. More electronics in it, and in particular more PIECES, which means more pick-and-place time.
Economy of scale might bring it town to something comparable a couple years into a big deployment. But it will still cost a bunch extra at first - which is when you are trying to recover startup costs and simultaneously underbid the competition. And then you need a bunch of satellites rather than one or two.
So a new player would find itself in a position similar to Iridium vs. the carriers' cell-site networks, trying to recover the costs of a constellation of LEO satellites and custom consumer bricks from the revenue of a niche market (when a GEOsat competitor sells/leases cheaper bricks and flies 'way fewer birds.)
I... somewhat in between "MIT Certification" and "Internet-U Certification". They're trying to walk a line of ensuring that the regular MIT degree programs are differentiated, while still leveraging the MIT name to distinguish the online course from just any random online course.
So when can we get degrees from an accredited university via online work? Or even course credit that is accepted by other accredited degree-granting schools (accepted either "at all" or "without jumping through extra hoops").
I don't care if MIT wants to spin off a subsidiary with a distinct name and reputation if they think online students are enough iffier that they'd dilute the main brand. But for getting past modern HR departments you need the real thing to check the "degree X or foreign equivalent" box, and you need to check that box to keep the resume out of the round file.
Yes I know there are a few other universities that do offer such now. But MIT seems to be just dipping its toes in the water rather than jumping in. In the process they seem likely to reduce their "certification"'s usability to the wall decoration and hobbyist satisfaction level.
Some decades ago there were fine, prestigious, correspondence-schooling programs available for people living and working in remote areas who wanted to continue their education. Most of the people who built railroad steam engines, for instance, had degrees from the International Correspondence Schools (ICS - which still exists). The "electronic frontier" has many of the same characteristics - including especially people with remote locations, educational needs, and adequate communication to fulfill them IF suitable institutions exist to service them.
It's good that MIT is trying to fill the need - but it's unfortunate that they appear to be only playing at it.
Seven hundred sixty, eh? So where's the list?
Over the last several years I warned the Silicon Valley hi-tech networking company I was at that they were a prime target for a spear-phishing attack from both China (to steal their IP for their Chinese competitor) and from the malware industry (which was turning from attacks on the leaves to attacks on the network infrastructure machines). And during this time the conglomerate that ate us switched the engineers' machines from Linux to Windows, destroyed the internal IT department, and outsourced network management to an external supplier. (In a networking company, no less. We WERE the relevant experts. B-b ) And the external supplier "upgraded" us to machines with built-in remote administration backdoors in the firmware of the networking cards.
I want to see if the company in question is on the list, and what happened to it, so I can give them a big "I TOLD YOU SO".
One mentioned in TFA is HP. I'd like to know what division is in question. One of HP's divisions is just such a supplier of outsourced IT administration, which moves much of their clients' functionality (including, especially, email and authentication services) to their own servers. If that department got compromised the list may be far longer than 760, because all their clients may have been compromised by that single attack. (Same is true if any of the several other such providers got hit.)
Two items about the Soviet Union:
1) It was rebuilt with a lot of financial aid from the US - mainly from corporations.
2) Stalin killed off more of the Soviet Union's people than Hitler did. If you kill off enough people - like several million - there's enough food to go around for the rest. (This worked in China, too.)
Yeah, like the interstate highway system. Boy, they made out like bandits on that one.
Yep. A lot of nephews and cousins of politicians (and members of their political machines) "won" the construction contracts and made out like bandits.
Still are, too. Especially with large amounts of gas tax money diverted from road construction to "alternative transport" projects to "get people out of their cars". Lots of graft to go around there.
Also, without some kind of "peaking store" you'd need an enormous fuel cell to handle the short high-acceleration periods such as starting from a dead stop.
With a peaking store (such as batteries or a flywheel) and regenerative braking you only need to handle the uphill cruising load, with regenerative braking plus charging while "idling" before the start or restart handling the higher loads of variable speed operation.
You're talking about a factor of fifteen or so in fuel cell size and weight, nearly that in construction expense, wasted fuel from keeping it hot rather than shutting it off as soon as the batteries are fully charged, and exhaust gasses in the garage.
(You'll probably want to keep it hot unless the car will be idle for a week or more, to avoid damage from thermal cycling and a resulting shortening of its service life. In essence that means it's always burning "idling" fuel unless you've mothballed it while on vacation.)
The Modern day AT&T is a reformation of the bulk of the old AT&T, albeit with management lead by one of the more ethically challenged corners rather than from the original top.
Sorta like the T-1000 in Terminator II.
The courts smashed AT&T into a bunch of little pieces, which rolled around like big balls of mercury each doing their own thing. Once the antitrust restrictions timed out, the balls began to merge. When enough of them had merged the resulting blob reshaped itself into something resembling (but somewhat different from) the original structure.
If the original is male you can construct a female by duplicating the X and removing the Y. The female will likely be viable since the male was and there are very few genes on the Y.
Both will be heterozygous for many genes. Breeding them for a few generations will likely eliminate the detrimental recessives and produce a viable nearly-all-homozygous "purebread", assuming none of the genes actually require two alleles for viability. You may have a rather high rate of miscarriages and defects for a while but it shouldn't take very long.
Once you have a viable purebread and a niche it fits you can go many generations with essentially no diversity at all. (Cheetahs are doing this now.) The main problem is lack of immune system diversity: A bug that kills one of 'em is likely to kill most of 'em. (Secondary problem is difficulty moving into a new niche if the old one dries up. But that's not an issue for what would amount to a zoo animal.)
Regardless, once you've got a breeding pair that is producing viable offspring, you've got many generations of leeway to find and incorporate more DNA and restore a more robust level of diversity. (Unlike the initial clones, the DNA need not be from a completely intact genome, or even an intact chromosome. So it's easier to find.) Elephant generations are about 25 years (compared with 30 to 35 for humans) so there's no big rush.
Cool. Thanks.
Why does this need to involve government?
Because it lets the government pick winners and losers. Winners are given early information about cyber threats. Losers are not.
Winners tend to correlate well with campaign contributors.
Oxygen concentration cells work off anything that eats oxygen when it burns (and doesn't poison the fuel cell - which very few things do) and which is physically compatible with the fuel feed infrastructure.
For a cell designed for liquid fuels that's liquid hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel fuel, salad oil, liquid fat, ...), alcohols, and just about any other liquid fuel. If it also handles gas you can also use propane, hydrogen (if your plumbing is up to it), etc. Use a good enough feed system and you can run it on solid fuels, too.
I want one that eats stove pellets. B-) You can make those out of any plant waste: sawdust, lawn clippings, stalks of food plants, weeds, ... Or shred and pelletize your junk mail.