Power delivery is not a problem at all. Look at the cable cars in San Fransisco, any modern subway... really most modern rail systems. However, if they can turn 70% of their breaking power in to electrical energy, accelerating the train back up to speed or, apparently, 15Km of crusing can be done absolutely for free.
And it already works that way. And it has been working this way since brush-powered electric trains and buses were first built.
If you've got a speed-controllable electric motor hooked to an electric grid, you can do regenerative braking by setting the motor's desired speed to something lower than its current speed. The motor then DEcelerates the vehicle, acting as a generator and putting the vehicle's energy (less resistive, eddy-current, hysteresis, and excitation losses) back into the power supply.
If there are rotary converters (or suitably designed electronic converters) in the system (for instance: To turn line AC into DC or lower-frequency AC for the trains/buses), they do the same thing - pushing the energy back toward the main grid. If not, the energy is still usable by other vehicles on the system that happen to be consuming power, dropping the amount that needs to be pulled from the primary supply.
This is very convenient: In addition to the energy savings, the vehicle's mechanical brakes get much less use, and much less wear. They can be reserved for the last moments of a full stop, holding the vehicle motionless when stopped, and for emergencies. This drastically reduces the necessary maintenance.
What the super-fast-charge battery does is let you do the same thing - MAJOR regenerative braking - for a vehicle that's NOT continuously attached to a power grid. The current hybrids do some of this using more ordinary battery technology. But there are limits due to the batteries' slow charging, large losses, and weight. The fast charge means even a panic stop can be salvaged and a much lower weight of batteries is necessary for a given RATE of energy transfer.
Also: The fast charge implies that the batteries lose very little energy when storing it (otherwise they'd melt down or catch fire). This implies low internal resistance, which also means fast and efficient DIScharge when you want the energy back. So we finally have batteries that can perform as well as (or better than) a (still mostly impractical) flywheel/motor-generator system for "peaking" storage. (TFA's stated losses of about 30% per stop/start cycle look about right for a system where the losses are virtually all in the motor and controller. That would be about 84% efficiency on both start and stop cycles, which is right in the ballpark for a good motor.)
Size the batteries large enough to store the power of a vehicle coming down off about 8,500 feet of mountain freeway and making a full stop near sea level and you achieve the full potential of regenerative breaking: The engine then needs only to be big enough to fight friction - like under 20 horse - and can run at maximum efficiency when it runs at all. Size them maybe a tad larger to also run a couple long and hilly commute-and-shopping cycles on a line-powered charge without starting the engine - reserving the engine for long trips - and you also achieve a fully-functional "plug-in hybrid", a single vehicle adequate to completely replace a normal, non-hybrid, car in ALL service cycles and run off utility electricity (currently the equivalent of about $0.75/gallon gas) in all but cross-country trips.
The usual statement about such breakthroughs - that deployment is always 10 years away - seems to have been hurdled. This technology was at that stage a year or two back. But THIS announcement, of deployment in a vehicle (even though experimental) implies it's not just sitting in the lab, but getting some real-world production and testing. Once that's a production vehicle (if not sooner) the batteries will also be available to automobile designers...
These little puppies were first discovered by accident back when AT&T was "The Phone Company". If I've got this right: Bell Labs had come up with a new alloy for terminal blocks that they thought would have some advantages. Western Electric made some up and the Bell Systems deployed them.
Some time later they started running into trouble. Linemen would try to turn the nut and it wouldn't turn. So they cut some out and sent 'em in for analysis.
These long, thin, crystals of metal had grown through the boundary of the thread, welding the nuts onto the bolts. They were extremely pure and very strong - in the general neighborhood of the theoretical strength of the material, when things fabricated by normal processes fell short by a "factor of many" (more than one power of ten).
They cristened them "whiskers". I'm not aware of anything that came of that at the time.
But when the early satellites were going up (back when the very early printed circuits were the cutting edge of hi-tech), whiskers showed up again - growing between the lines of the printed circuit board exposed to vacuum and zero g, shorting things out. This is why early US satellites (heavily miniaturized to go on the small boosters) tended to flake out while early Russian stuff (big discrete components on terminal strips lifted by their big boosters) kept working - and why that reversed later, when the US had the problem solved and the Russians started miniaturizing and had to go through the same learning curve.
Once they figured out what was happening and came up with an alloy that didn't whisker, they played around for a bit with self-healing printed circuit boards. These had conductors of a whiskering alloy with a plating of non-whiskering stuff. Idea was that if a trace broke due to vibration during launch, the exposed core would whisker across the gap and make things run again (until it whiskered over to another wire and shorted things out.) During that time they also played with self-healing aluminized mylar capacitors, designed so that if the mylar developed a hole the cap would discharge through the hole, vaporize the aluminum around the hole, and things would then go back to normal operation.
I'm not sure that any of this actually worked out.
If these ARE whiskers-on-demand as storage elements, it's nice to see whiskers actually do something useful. B-)
As for misdeeds by the Democrats, it wasn't in the 80s, but apparently you're forgetting about that debacle the Vietnam War.
And more than the war:
- The draft was really a social-planning operation, trying to stave off a depression when the boomers graduated high-school and hit the unskilled job market by "channeling" them into government-preferred carreer paths with the threat of conscription if they didn't go on to full-time higher education and/or get work in particular jobs that carried deferments. (See the "channeling memo".)
- The FBI was used to infiltrate antiwar, civil rights, and other outside political organizations (such as civil rights groups) and not merely surveil them for violent/illegal activity, but sabotage their legal activities (for instance: By stirring up marital strife with faked reports and evidence of infidelity, planting evidence of crimes, agent provacateurs, etc.). (See COINTELPRO.) (Other agencies, such as BATF, were also involved.)
I could go on. (Like by describing Title II of the McCarran Act (since repealed) and the perparation for its use...) One of the few good things to be said about both parties of the time is that they didn't actually pull that trigger.
- If you use RSVP (or the like) to explicitly reserve bandwidth through the net for your flow, it's emulation of circuit-switching.
- If the routers identify the flow on the fly from seeing the packets and remember things about it from packet to packet for later decision-making, it's flow-based routing.
What's the difference between this flow routing and circuit switching?
Flow-based routing attempts to identify flows of packets - TCP connections, related streams of UDP packets, etc. - and cache information about them. Then when future packets of the flow arrive and are successfully identified they can be handled using the cached information, rather than performing a full lookup of routing, QoS labeling, permission checking, etc.
It may also attempt to identify more things about it - such as what kind of traffic it is. Then it can do other things: Identify what quality of service it requires. For instance: Streams such as VoIP and broadcast audio and video need low latencey and jitter (variability of transit time), but packets that are already delayed too much should be discarded, and the bandwidth SHOULD be limited. Meanwhile file transfers prefer delaying the packets to losing them but they're happy to take all the bandwidth left over from more critical stuff. So streams may go to the front of the line if they're timely but the trashcan if they're already delayed or there are too many of them than there should be.
Once a flow has been identified the knowledge can also be used to do other things with it: Find a better route that it has rights to use, give it preference if the customer's contract guarantees delivery (i.e. "you get 4 VoIP lines worth of bandwidth with high quality of service before your VoIP packets start getting best-effort handling".), perform "deep content inspection" (such as running email through a spam filter as a service), etc.
Circuit switching explicitly reserves resources through the network switches at the start of a session ("setup") and releases them at the end ("teardown"). Flow-based routing attempts to identify the flows of sessions on-the-fly, to speed routing decisions and be "smarter" about the flow - sometimes to the point of being able to emulate circuit-switched quality of service. But it doesn't REQUIRE setup/teardown and end-to-end cooperation to get things to happen. Instead, anything it can't identify goes through in the old way, with the router thinking about each packet of a flow from scratch, just as if the flow-related features didn't exist.
And Anagram is far from the only company working on it. B-) It's a major industry buzzword, on its way to becoming a (set of) required check-boxes for getting networking companies to buy your boxes.
Because Terminal Server CALs are too damn expensive? Remember, XP only contains CALs for Windows 2000 Server. This rdesktop you link to has NO free CAL, you'd have to buy them all separately for 2000 Server.
Yes you need a per-connection license to stay legal while using server-based desktops. (Though there are per-client licensing schemes available, the usual model is per-connection.) But it may be far cheaper to get the number of licenses needed for the number of seats that need to run the biz-specific apps at any given time than to get Windows licenses for every seat.
And then you gotta be wary because a lot of software (here's looking at you, Adobe) have license clauses outright forbidding usage on terminal servers of any sort.
Too true. Which is something to take up with the vendors, now, isn't it?
Any bets on whether your biz-specific tool vendor will write you a license rider to let you use it from a server (at the same revenue for him as if you actually had it installed on all the relevant desktops) if you tell him you're working on migration to linux desktops and you REALLY want to stay with him rather than start evaluating the competition's products...
I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901.
Well now you're safe to publish a picture of your activities, without worrying about whether their software has a hangover Y2K bug and might decide you're only 6 years old.
Rdesktop for legacy windows-only apps.
on
Vista Vs. Gutsy Gibbon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I noticed a recurring lament in the comments attached to TFA: Businesses usually have one or a few business-specific and business-critical applications that are Windows-only and that don't run adequately under Wine. Rupert's suggestion was to run Windows under virtualization - i.e. polluting every seat at the shop with microsoft code and licenses.
Why not do what my company does: Run the can't-do-without-'em Windows apps on a central Windows server and access them remotely via rdesktop?
Then you have only as many licenses as you actually need and you can migrate as many desktops and laptops as you please to Linux.
(And since it uses Microsoft's own version of remote desktopping they'll have a hard time breaking it without breaking themselves. B-) )
I can. I did emission-control testing automation back in the 70s.
Unleadded gas has no lead added and essentially no lead surviving the refinement as well. This is because even traces of lead will poison the catalytic converters that are necessary to achieve the incredibly low emission rates now required.
When you add lead to gasoline, you are really adding tetraethylead (you can go to an automotive store and buy it). It does two important things 1) increases octane and 2) lubricates the fuel system.
In particular, it lubricates the valve stems - particularly on the exhaust valve. That one is too hot to be easily lubricated by oil. But when "ethyl" burns the bottom of the stem gets plated with a microscopic coat of slippery lead metal while it's extended. Then it retracts into the guide, sliding on the coat of lead.
Engines during the leaded-gas era were designed to have those stems lubricated by the lead. One of the changed needed for unleaded-eating engines was to come up with an alloy for the guides that wouldn't need the assistance of the lead coating.
The cans of tetraethyl lead for adding to your gas are for older, classic, cars with engines that still need the lead lube to avoid self-destruction. There are plenty of other things than "ethyl" that will retard the flame front enough to avoid knocking, even in a lean-adjusted high-compression engine. But there are essentially no substitutes (that aren't even MORE toxic) for the valve lube.
Fortunately there are very few classic cars still operating, and those that are tend to be operated very little. Home-brewing an occasional tank leaded gas in a collector's classic car is not a big source of pollution. And the beaters are pretty much off the road now, due to wear-out or engine-compartment fires.
The latter occurred over several years because MTBE dissolved the rubber gas lines of older vehicles while they were in operation, spilling gasoline over the top of the hot engine. (The regulators knew at this was happening, but decided it was actually good. Most of the pollution was from a few older cars. This got them off the road at no cost to the government, with the fires, property damage, and occasional injuries or deaths blamed on the owners' maintenance.)
Lead levels in the Roman Empire would be worth a look.
They already were.
Body loads of lead were very high in the later periods - especially among the upper, decision-making, classes. To the point that lead was believed to have been the major cause of a lack of fertility among the upper classes and the decline of those families.
Turns out it wasn't the lead plumbing - where the lead pretty much stayed in the pipes. They had figured out that if you put a lead liner in wine bottles the wine stayed sweet as it aged, rather than turning sour. But that's not because it DOESN'T turn to vinegar - instead the vinegar (acetic acid) reacts with the lead to form lead acetate - which is so sweet it's also called "sugar of lead". And it's REALLY well absorbed by the body.
If someone has some type of damage that causes them to INVOLUNTARILY mimic criminal behavior, does that make them a criminal?
The law says no, despite what you would like to see.
However the law has another category and a suitable reaction: Involuntary commitment to a mental institution as a person with a mental disorder making him a danger to (self or) others.
(My wife has proposed another alternative to "not guilty by reason of insanity" as a verdict for people who know they're doing something wrong but chose to do so nevertheless out of mental disorder: "Guilty but fruitcake." With the appropriate sentence to be confinement to a mental institution until they die or are successfully treated and can be relied upon to make the decisions of a "reasonable and prudent" person.)
Lead has also been associated directly with delinquent, criminal, and aggressive behavior.
And it MUST be the lead that's doing it. After all, it COULDN'T POSSIBLY be any other factor. Couldn't be, say, poverty leading to lack of opportunity for legal employment, recruitment and harassment by criminal gangs (leading to violent self-defense and/or joining a gang), and living in older substandard housing (which is far more likely than newer buildings to have lead paint.)
Now if you want a correlation-implies-causation argument try this one:
Prison guards have noticed that a very strong predictor of violent behavior in a prisoner is whether he sits down to pee - with the sitters being the totally violent fruitcakes. Theory is that these are the guys who were raised COMPLETELY by mother alone, with no male role model (even a boyfriend who interacted with the kid rather than just visiting mom) to teach them that "real men channel their aggressive impulses and pee standing up".
These statistical correlations are a complete crock. There are a million things that have changed over the last few years that could also be attributed.
One that was done piecemeal (so regression analysis could be performed) and which produced a strong signal under such analysis: Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-protection against criminals. This drastically lowers the overall violent crime and injury/death rates (even if you DO count any crooks shot in self-defense as a "victim").
Interestingly, while many thought it might produce a short bloodbath (until criminals got the message that some of their victims might be armed), that didn't happen. Instead the violent crime rate just dropped, as criminals moved to less-armed areas, switched from muggings, armed robberies, carjackings, "hot" (occupied-dwelling) burglaries, to things like burglarizing UNoccupied homes and stores, or just found legal work. Rapes dropped like a rock, too (though they went up somewhat in nearby areas that hadn't yet liberalized their own laws.)
Turns out the crooks weren't SO stupid that they couldn't see the writing on that wall. And even those who didn't get the message right away usually weren't dumb enough to keep attacking, rather than run away, when they found themselves looking at the wrong end of a pistol.
(When Florida changed to non-discretionary CCW (i.e. the license has to be granted if the applicant jumps through the correct hoops and doesn't have a criminal record), one gang switched to hitting tourist in rental cars, on the assumption they'd be unarmed - both by airport regs and lack of a permit. Florida fixed that by removing the requirement that rental cars have distinctive markings/licenses and by issuing concealed carry permits to tourists. B-) Interestingly, even during the peak of the rob-the-Florida-tourists boom a tourist had less chance of being robbed in Florida than in California.)
Really! In "most" of their stories they use the term "many" in place of apparently uncounted small numbers. Wonders never cease.
He he.
I'd say "touche". But I haven't done a survey so don't have actual numbers, and thus consider using such non-numbers appropriate. Newsies, on the other hand, will use "many" when the actual numbers are easily obtained (often from the press releases they're rewriting.)
But with an electron beam... you could potentially create a floating point of light?
Naw. It would have to hit something to glow. And it wouldn't be much of a beam with an acceleration voltage in the single-digit volts needed to produce visible light when the electrons slam into something.
As for trying to make a middle-of-the-air display by intersecting electron and positron beams: While half-MeV gamma-ray photons count as "light" they don't count as "visible light" (unless the light is really bright and an unfocused, all-over-the-retina, dying-cell sensation counts as "visible"). They're more than 100,000 times as "ultra" as "ultra-violet".
Like an electron beam - with electric and/or magnetic fields. (But because the particles are positive you have to use the reverse of the fields you'd use on electrons.)
doesn't it cause an explosion if it touches normal particles?
It causes a spot of gamma-ray (and neutrino) "light" emission. Kinda like an x-ray tube with a half-million volts between the electrodes (minus the vacuum bottle).
can it be used as a weapon?
If you have a BIG truck to carry the swimming-pool reactor around. B-)
as fuel?
No. You'd need to trap the antimatter to use it later - and to trap any significant amount you'd have to make anti-matter neucei to counter (most of) the anti-electrons' mutual repulsion. Otherwise you'd be spending far more power holding it in than it would ever produce. That means making at LEAST anti-protons, a much more ambitious task (over 1,800 times as hard if you're just counting energy per particle).
So if you shot a powerful positron beam at something and also shot a powerful electron beam at it also, would you have a continuous antimatter explosion at the crossover point?
Kinda. It's more like a gamma-ray (and neutrino) light source. The electron-positron annihilation releases a tad over a MeV mainly as two photons that fly off in opposite directions - plus a neutrino, so the photons are somewhat under half the energy each.
Think of it as an x-ray tube - without the vacuum tube - but with the power supply, instead of being in the kilovolt range, cranked up to whatever the beam voltage is plus an extra half-million volts or so.
Also, if you have a target you don't really need the electron beam. Just ground it well enough that it doesn't accumulate enough positive voltage to deflect the positron beam to somewhere else.
I plop in a liveCD and see if that distro detects the HW and the HW works. Then I know that support *is* out there, I just have to find out how that particular distro made it work.
Not only that, but in the unlikely event that the live CD drives the hardware and the install doesn't, you can sniff a running live CD system to see how it did it.
Then you can mount partitions of the installed system and copy your notes and any configuration files for later tweaking-in, or hack away on the installed version's configuration files directly. If you somehow manage to break the installed version to the point it won't boot (and kept copies of the unmodified files you tweaked) you can just bring up the live CD, mount the partition, and put the files back like it was.
Actually it's moderately transparent - unless you happen to be one of the subset of humanity that has a particularly dark skin pigment. (Even then it's pretty transparent except on the outer layer - not that it matters. B-( )
Hold your hand up to a lamp. Notice the light coming through it. Very diffused, but clearly quite a bit there.
Of course if you move the nanowires out to the skin level the transparency of the body - even with a heavily-pigmented skin - is no longer an issue.
However, given the enormous energy density of the body's processes there should be plenty of power to tap for "embedded systems". For medical sensors give me a sugar/oxygen fuel cell any day. (The body uses those. Though perhaps a different system might be better for straight electrical output.)
Meanwhile this sort of structure sounds like it would make a dandy textile if it were thickened up a bit, spun into thread, and somebody can figure out how to connect to it.
So when consumers have the option of a free song from Radiohead's site, and a free song from the same place they're getting all of their other free music, why bother going to the Radiohead site?
Also: If you're going to download it for $0, why chew up the bandwidth the band is paying for?
(Unless they ask you to do it that way because the bump in the download stats is worth more to the band than the hosting costs for the download.)
Slashdot Mirror
Power delivery is not a problem at all. Look at the cable cars in San Fransisco, any modern subway... really most modern rail systems. However, if they can turn 70% of their breaking power in to electrical energy, accelerating the train back up to speed or, apparently, 15Km of crusing can be done absolutely for free.
And it already works that way. And it has been working this way since brush-powered electric trains and buses were first built.
If you've got a speed-controllable electric motor hooked to an electric grid, you can do regenerative braking by setting the motor's desired speed to something lower than its current speed. The motor then DEcelerates the vehicle, acting as a generator and putting the vehicle's energy (less resistive, eddy-current, hysteresis, and excitation losses) back into the power supply.
If there are rotary converters (or suitably designed electronic converters) in the system (for instance: To turn line AC into DC or lower-frequency AC for the trains/buses), they do the same thing - pushing the energy back toward the main grid. If not, the energy is still usable by other vehicles on the system that happen to be consuming power, dropping the amount that needs to be pulled from the primary supply.
This is very convenient: In addition to the energy savings, the vehicle's mechanical brakes get much less use, and much less wear. They can be reserved for the last moments of a full stop, holding the vehicle motionless when stopped, and for emergencies. This drastically reduces the necessary maintenance.
What the super-fast-charge battery does is let you do the same thing - MAJOR regenerative braking - for a vehicle that's NOT continuously attached to a power grid. The current hybrids do some of this using more ordinary battery technology. But there are limits due to the batteries' slow charging, large losses, and weight. The fast charge means even a panic stop can be salvaged and a much lower weight of batteries is necessary for a given RATE of energy transfer.
Also: The fast charge implies that the batteries lose very little energy when storing it (otherwise they'd melt down or catch fire). This implies low internal resistance, which also means fast and efficient DIScharge when you want the energy back. So we finally have batteries that can perform as well as (or better than) a (still mostly impractical) flywheel/motor-generator system for "peaking" storage. (TFA's stated losses of about 30% per stop/start cycle look about right for a system where the losses are virtually all in the motor and controller. That would be about 84% efficiency on both start and stop cycles, which is right in the ballpark for a good motor.)
Size the batteries large enough to store the power of a vehicle coming down off about 8,500 feet of mountain freeway and making a full stop near sea level and you achieve the full potential of regenerative breaking: The engine then needs only to be big enough to fight friction - like under 20 horse - and can run at maximum efficiency when it runs at all. Size them maybe a tad larger to also run a couple long and hilly commute-and-shopping cycles on a line-powered charge without starting the engine - reserving the engine for long trips - and you also achieve a fully-functional "plug-in hybrid", a single vehicle adequate to completely replace a normal, non-hybrid, car in ALL service cycles and run off utility electricity (currently the equivalent of about $0.75/gallon gas) in all but cross-country trips.
The usual statement about such breakthroughs - that deployment is always 10 years away - seems to have been hurdled. This technology was at that stage a year or two back. But THIS announcement, of deployment in a vehicle (even though experimental) implies it's not just sitting in the lab, but getting some real-world production and testing. Once that's a production vehicle (if not sooner) the batteries will also be available to automobile designers...
This sounds suspiciously like "whiskers".
These little puppies were first discovered by accident back when AT&T was "The Phone Company". If I've got this right: Bell Labs had come up with a new alloy for terminal blocks that they thought would have some advantages. Western Electric made some up and the Bell Systems deployed them.
Some time later they started running into trouble. Linemen would try to turn the nut and it wouldn't turn. So they cut some out and sent 'em in for analysis.
These long, thin, crystals of metal had grown through the boundary of the thread, welding the nuts onto the bolts. They were extremely pure and very strong - in the general neighborhood of the theoretical strength of the material, when things fabricated by normal processes fell short by a "factor of many" (more than one power of ten).
They cristened them "whiskers". I'm not aware of anything that came of that at the time.
But when the early satellites were going up (back when the very early printed circuits were the cutting edge of hi-tech), whiskers showed up again - growing between the lines of the printed circuit board exposed to vacuum and zero g, shorting things out. This is why early US satellites (heavily miniaturized to go on the small boosters) tended to flake out while early Russian stuff (big discrete components on terminal strips lifted by their big boosters) kept working - and why that reversed later, when the US had the problem solved and the Russians started miniaturizing and had to go through the same learning curve.
Once they figured out what was happening and came up with an alloy that didn't whisker, they played around for a bit with self-healing printed circuit boards. These had conductors of a whiskering alloy with a plating of non-whiskering stuff. Idea was that if a trace broke due to vibration during launch, the exposed core would whisker across the gap and make things run again (until it whiskered over to another wire and shorted things out.) During that time they also played with self-healing aluminized mylar capacitors, designed so that if the mylar developed a hole the cap would discharge through the hole, vaporize the aluminum around the hole, and things would then go back to normal operation.
I'm not sure that any of this actually worked out.
If these ARE whiskers-on-demand as storage elements, it's nice to see whiskers actually do something useful. B-)
As for misdeeds by the Democrats, it wasn't in the 80s, but apparently you're forgetting about that debacle the Vietnam War.
And more than the war:
- The draft was really a social-planning operation, trying to stave off a depression when the boomers graduated high-school and hit the unskilled job market by "channeling" them into government-preferred carreer paths with the threat of conscription if they didn't go on to full-time higher education and/or get work in particular jobs that carried deferments. (See the "channeling memo".)
- The FBI was used to infiltrate antiwar, civil rights, and other outside political organizations (such as civil rights groups) and not merely surveil them for violent/illegal activity, but sabotage their legal activities (for instance: By stirring up marital strife with faked reports and evidence of infidelity, planting evidence of crimes, agent provacateurs, etc.). (See COINTELPRO.) (Other agencies, such as BATF, were also involved.)
I could go on. (Like by describing Title II of the McCarran Act (since repealed) and the perparation for its use...) One of the few good things to be said about both parties of the time is that they didn't actually pull that trigger.
In particular:
- If you use RSVP (or the like) to explicitly reserve bandwidth through the net for your flow, it's emulation of circuit-switching.
- If the routers identify the flow on the fly from seeing the packets and remember things about it from packet to packet for later decision-making, it's flow-based routing.
What's the difference between this flow routing and circuit switching?
Flow-based routing attempts to identify flows of packets - TCP connections, related streams of UDP packets, etc. - and cache information about them. Then when future packets of the flow arrive and are successfully identified they can be handled using the cached information, rather than performing a full lookup of routing, QoS labeling, permission checking, etc.
It may also attempt to identify more things about it - such as what kind of traffic it is. Then it can do other things: Identify what quality of service it requires. For instance:
Streams such as VoIP and broadcast audio and video need low latencey and jitter (variability of transit time), but packets that are already delayed too much should be discarded, and the bandwidth SHOULD be limited. Meanwhile file transfers prefer delaying the packets to losing them but they're happy to take all the bandwidth left over from more critical stuff. So streams may go to the front of the line if they're timely but the trashcan if they're already delayed or there are too many of them than there should be.
Once a flow has been identified the knowledge can also be used to do other things with it: Find a better route that it has rights to use, give it preference if the customer's contract guarantees delivery (i.e. "you get 4 VoIP lines worth of bandwidth with high quality of service before your VoIP packets start getting best-effort handling".), perform "deep content inspection" (such as running email through a spam filter as a service), etc.
Circuit switching explicitly reserves resources through the network switches at the start of a session ("setup") and releases them at the end ("teardown"). Flow-based routing attempts to identify the flows of sessions on-the-fly, to speed routing decisions and be "smarter" about the flow - sometimes to the point of being able to emulate circuit-switched quality of service. But it doesn't REQUIRE setup/teardown and end-to-end cooperation to get things to happen. Instead, anything it can't identify goes through in the old way, with the router thinking about each packet of a flow from scratch, just as if the flow-related features didn't exist.
And Anagram is far from the only company working on it. B-) It's a major industry buzzword, on its way to becoming a (set of) required check-boxes for getting networking companies to buy your boxes.
Hydrogen fueled engine in the stratosphere for days at a time, eh?
...
So we're talking injecting tons of water vapor into the stratosphere - where it can produce long-lasting high-altitude clouds.
They'd be thin. But they'd do a DANDY job of reflecting sunlight.
Cloud reflectivity is a FAR greater forcing function of temperature than greenhouse gas.
So use of this plane could cause significant (wait for it)
GLOBAL COOLING!
Ice ages! Oh, Horrors!
Because Terminal Server CALs are too damn expensive? Remember, XP only contains CALs for Windows 2000 Server. This rdesktop you link to has NO free CAL, you'd have to buy them all separately for 2000 Server.
Yes you need a per-connection license to stay legal while using server-based desktops. (Though there are per-client licensing schemes available, the usual model is per-connection.) But it may be far cheaper to get the number of licenses needed for the number of seats that need to run the biz-specific apps at any given time than to get Windows licenses for every seat.
And then you gotta be wary because a lot of software (here's looking at you, Adobe) have license clauses outright forbidding usage on terminal servers of any sort.
Too true. Which is something to take up with the vendors, now, isn't it?
Any bets on whether your biz-specific tool vendor will write you a license rider to let you use it from a server (at the same revenue for him as if you actually had it installed on all the relevant desktops) if you tell him you're working on migration to linux desktops and you REALLY want to stay with him rather than start evaluating the competition's products...
I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901.
Well now you're safe to publish a picture of your activities, without worrying about whether their software has a hangover Y2K bug and might decide you're only 6 years old.
I noticed a recurring lament in the comments attached to TFA: Businesses usually have one or a few business-specific and business-critical applications that are Windows-only and that don't run adequately under Wine. Rupert's suggestion was to run Windows under virtualization - i.e. polluting every seat at the shop with microsoft code and licenses.
Why not do what my company does: Run the can't-do-without-'em Windows apps on a central Windows server and access them remotely via rdesktop?
Then you have only as many licenses as you actually need and you can migrate as many desktops and laptops as you please to Linux.
(And since it uses Microsoft's own version of remote desktopping they'll have a hard time breaking it without breaking themselves. B-) )
I can neither confirm nor deny that.
I can. I did emission-control testing automation back in the 70s.
Unleadded gas has no lead added and essentially no lead surviving the refinement as well. This is because even traces of lead will poison the catalytic converters that are necessary to achieve the incredibly low emission rates now required.
When you add lead to gasoline, you are really adding tetraethylead (you can go to an automotive store and buy it). It does two important things 1) increases octane and 2) lubricates the fuel system.
In particular, it lubricates the valve stems - particularly on the exhaust valve. That one is too hot to be easily lubricated by oil. But when "ethyl" burns the bottom of the stem gets plated with a microscopic coat of slippery lead metal while it's extended. Then it retracts into the guide, sliding on the coat of lead.
Engines during the leaded-gas era were designed to have those stems lubricated by the lead. One of the changed needed for unleaded-eating engines was to come up with an alloy for the guides that wouldn't need the assistance of the lead coating.
The cans of tetraethyl lead for adding to your gas are for older, classic, cars with engines that still need the lead lube to avoid self-destruction. There are plenty of other things than "ethyl" that will retard the flame front enough to avoid knocking, even in a lean-adjusted high-compression engine. But there are essentially no substitutes (that aren't even MORE toxic) for the valve lube.
Fortunately there are very few classic cars still operating, and those that are tend to be operated very little. Home-brewing an occasional tank leaded gas in a collector's classic car is not a big source of pollution. And the beaters are pretty much off the road now, due to wear-out or engine-compartment fires.
The latter occurred over several years because MTBE dissolved the rubber gas lines of older vehicles while they were in operation, spilling gasoline over the top of the hot engine. (The regulators knew at this was happening, but decided it was actually good. Most of the pollution was from a few older cars. This got them off the road at no cost to the government, with the fires, property damage, and occasional injuries or deaths blamed on the owners' maintenance.)
Lead levels in the Roman Empire would be worth a look.
They already were.
Body loads of lead were very high in the later periods - especially among the upper, decision-making, classes. To the point that lead was believed to have been the major cause of a lack of fertility among the upper classes and the decline of those families.
Turns out it wasn't the lead plumbing - where the lead pretty much stayed in the pipes. They had figured out that if you put a lead liner in wine bottles the wine stayed sweet as it aged, rather than turning sour. But that's not because it DOESN'T turn to vinegar - instead the vinegar (acetic acid) reacts with the lead to form lead acetate - which is so sweet it's also called "sugar of lead". And it's REALLY well absorbed by the body.
If someone has some type of damage that causes them to INVOLUNTARILY mimic criminal behavior, does that make them a criminal?
The law says no, despite what you would like to see.
However the law has another category and a suitable reaction: Involuntary commitment to a mental institution as a person with a mental disorder making him a danger to (self or) others.
(My wife has proposed another alternative to "not guilty by reason of insanity" as a verdict for people who know they're doing something wrong but chose to do so nevertheless out of mental disorder: "Guilty but fruitcake." With the appropriate sentence to be confinement to a mental institution until they die or are successfully treated and can be relied upon to make the decisions of a "reasonable and prudent" person.)
Lead has also been associated directly with delinquent, criminal, and aggressive behavior.
And it MUST be the lead that's doing it. After all, it COULDN'T POSSIBLY be any other factor. Couldn't be, say, poverty leading to lack of opportunity for legal employment, recruitment and harassment by criminal gangs (leading to violent self-defense and/or joining a gang), and living in older substandard housing (which is far more likely than newer buildings to have lead paint.)
Now if you want a correlation-implies-causation argument try this one:
Prison guards have noticed that a very strong predictor of violent behavior in a prisoner is whether he sits down to pee - with the sitters being the totally violent fruitcakes. Theory is that these are the guys who were raised COMPLETELY by mother alone, with no male role model (even a boyfriend who interacted with the kid rather than just visiting mom) to teach them that "real men channel their aggressive impulses and pee standing up".
These statistical correlations are a complete crock. There are a million things that have changed over the last few years that could also be attributed.
One that was done piecemeal (so regression analysis could be performed) and which produced a strong signal under such analysis: Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-protection against criminals. This drastically lowers the overall violent crime and injury/death rates (even if you DO count any crooks shot in self-defense as a "victim").
Interestingly, while many thought it might produce a short bloodbath (until criminals got the message that some of their victims might be armed), that didn't happen. Instead the violent crime rate just dropped, as criminals moved to less-armed areas, switched from muggings, armed robberies, carjackings, "hot" (occupied-dwelling) burglaries, to things like burglarizing UNoccupied homes and stores, or just found legal work. Rapes dropped like a rock, too (though they went up somewhat in nearby areas that hadn't yet liberalized their own laws.)
Turns out the crooks weren't SO stupid that they couldn't see the writing on that wall. And even those who didn't get the message right away usually weren't dumb enough to keep attacking, rather than run away, when they found themselves looking at the wrong end of a pistol.
(When Florida changed to non-discretionary CCW (i.e. the license has to be granted if the applicant jumps through the correct hoops and doesn't have a criminal record), one gang switched to hitting tourist in rental cars, on the assumption they'd be unarmed - both by airport regs and lack of a permit. Florida fixed that by removing the requirement that rental cars have distinctive markings/licenses and by issuing concealed carry permits to tourists. B-) Interestingly, even during the peak of the rob-the-Florida-tourists boom a tourist had less chance of being robbed in Florida than in California.)
Really! In "most" of their stories they use the term "many" in place of apparently uncounted small numbers. Wonders never cease.
He he.
I'd say "touche". But I haven't done a survey so don't have actual numbers, and thus consider using such non-numbers appropriate. Newsies, on the other hand, will use "many" when the actual numbers are easily obtained (often from the press releases they're rewriting.)
But with an electron beam ... you could potentially create a floating point of light?
Naw. It would have to hit something to glow. And it wouldn't be much of a beam with an acceleration voltage in the single-digit volts needed to produce visible light when the electrons slam into something.
As for trying to make a middle-of-the-air display by intersecting electron and positron beams: While half-MeV gamma-ray photons count as "light" they don't count as "visible light" (unless the light is really bright and an unfocused, all-over-the-retina, dying-cell sensation counts as "visible"). They're more than 100,000 times as "ultra" as "ultra-violet".
Approximately? Who the heck couldn't count to 25?
Most newsmen (judging by their use of the term "many" in place of actual integers - even very small ones - in most of their stories.
Either that or they think their audience can't understand numbers greater than three or so.
How is the beam manipulated?
Like an electron beam - with electric and/or magnetic fields. (But because the particles are positive you have to use the reverse of the fields you'd use on electrons.)
doesn't it cause an explosion if it touches normal particles?
It causes a spot of gamma-ray (and neutrino) "light" emission. Kinda like an x-ray tube with a half-million volts between the electrodes (minus the vacuum bottle).
can it be used as a weapon?
If you have a BIG truck to carry the swimming-pool reactor around. B-)
as fuel?
No. You'd need to trap the antimatter to use it later - and to trap any significant amount you'd have to make anti-matter neucei to counter (most of) the anti-electrons' mutual repulsion. Otherwise you'd be spending far more power holding it in than it would ever produce. That means making at LEAST anti-protons, a much more ambitious task (over 1,800 times as hard if you're just counting energy per particle).
So if you shot a powerful positron beam at something and also shot a powerful electron beam at it also, would you have a continuous antimatter explosion at the crossover point?
Kinda. It's more like a gamma-ray (and neutrino) light source. The electron-positron annihilation releases a tad over a MeV mainly as two photons that fly off in opposite directions - plus a neutrino, so the photons are somewhat under half the energy each.
Think of it as an x-ray tube - without the vacuum tube - but with the power supply, instead of being in the kilovolt range, cranked up to whatever the beam voltage is plus an extra half-million volts or so.
Also, if you have a target you don't really need the electron beam. Just ground it well enough that it doesn't accumulate enough positive voltage to deflect the positron beam to somewhere else.
I guess they are going to have to start making long, rectangular post-it notes now.
They already do. 3" x 5" for starters.
(The ones in my desk organizer are from Staples but I think 3M makes "real post-its" in that size, too.)
I plop in a liveCD and see if that distro detects the HW and the HW works. Then I know that support *is* out there, I just have to find out how that particular distro made it work.
Not only that, but in the unlikely event that the live CD drives the hardware and the install doesn't, you can sniff a running live CD system to see how it did it.
Then you can mount partitions of the installed system and copy your notes and any configuration files for later tweaking-in, or hack away on the installed version's configuration files directly. If you somehow manage to break the installed version to the point it won't boot (and kept copies of the unmodified files you tweaked) you can just bring up the live CD, mount the partition, and put the files back like it was.
here's one. $16 and the reviews say it works with ubuntu fine.
Plug-and-play on Gutsy Gibbon.
And at least one reviewer says that it doesn't work worth beans on a couple versions of Windows even after he did hunt down and install drivers.
So it's a fine example of hardware with better Linux than Windows support. B-)
Actually it's moderately transparent - unless you happen to be one of the subset of humanity that has a particularly dark skin pigment. (Even then it's pretty transparent except on the outer layer - not that it matters. B-( )
Hold your hand up to a lamp. Notice the light coming through it. Very diffused, but clearly quite a bit there.
Of course if you move the nanowires out to the skin level the transparency of the body - even with a heavily-pigmented skin - is no longer an issue.
However, given the enormous energy density of the body's processes there should be plenty of power to tap for "embedded systems". For medical sensors give me a sugar/oxygen fuel cell any day. (The body uses those. Though perhaps a different system might be better for straight electrical output.)
Meanwhile this sort of structure sounds like it would make a dandy textile if it were thickened up a bit, spun into thread, and somebody can figure out how to connect to it.
So when consumers have the option of a free song from Radiohead's site, and a free song from the same place they're getting all of their other free music, why bother going to the Radiohead site?
Also: If you're going to download it for $0, why chew up the bandwidth the band is paying for?
(Unless they ask you to do it that way because the bump in the download stats is worth more to the band than the hosting costs for the download.)
Yes. (Oops.)
Once in every week, Braino in every brain.