- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), August 2014. - White House, October 2014. - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), November 2014. - United States Postal Service (USPS), November 2014. - Department of State, November 2014. - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), April 2015. - Department of Defense, April 2015. - St. Louis Federal Reserve, May 2015. - Internal Revenue Service, May 2015. - U.S. Army Web site, June 2015. - Office of Personnel Management (OPM), June 2015. - Census Bureau, July 2015. - Pentagon, August 2015.
Hmmm... FTC isn't in THAT list. Maybe the other agencies should have listened to them. B-)
Battery prices have been falling very quickly for years. They were estimated to be ~$600 per kWh in 2012 and expected to reach $200 per kWh by 2020 and $160 by 2025 http://www.plugincars.com/lith...
We may already be at the $200 level or getting close and *should* beat that $160 level by 2019.
The average lithium-ion battery pack has plunged to $150 per KWh from $1,200 per kilowatt hour in 2010, says MIT's Keith. Musk predicted on Tuesday that the Gigafactory could reach $100 per KWh by 2020,
The truth of the matter is that at the prices they're being sold for, most people want a Ford or GM far more than they want a Tesla.
Early adopter costs are high. Then, production of commodity items ramps up and they're sold at a more reasonable price. There are intermediate steps along the way with progressively larger prouction, lower cost, less flashy models.
This isn't just a modern high-tech phenomenon. The internal combustion automobiles went through it, too. They started as rich-people's playthings/status symbols and worked down through things like country-doctor housecall vehicles before Ford's commodity "A" and "T" vehicles put them within reach of the mass of the population. Why should new-tech battery-electric cars be any different?
Weird then that ATT provides instructions on how to use your own router
Another user has pointed out that the instructions are for DSL, not for U-verse. So far, U-verse modems are only available from AT&T.
But you missed the line at the end of the page:
Note: AT&T Tech Support does not support non-AT&T provided routers. Please contact the manufacturer of your router for further assistance.
Which means that if THEY break your service at THEIR end, they won't FIX it until you hook up one of THEIR modems - buying it if necessary.
This happened to me a couple months ago. It took a full month - and the purchase of TWO modems (the second from them after I bought a replacement from not-them for the supposedly failed modem - and they "refused to support it") before THEY bothered to even look at, let alone fix, the problems on THEIR end of the wire.
Now I could use a non-ATT modem. But if my service ever breaks again I'll have to hook up a "supported" modem to get it fixed again. (And you can count on it breaking.)
As you can guess, I'm now looking at other service providers. But from what I hear so far they may be even worse. B-b
Don't think any ISP can force you to use their's. FIOS ones i guess could force their's on you but you should be able to bridge it and use your own anyway.
Sure they can: 1. Break the user's feed by reconfiguring things in the company's plant - and do it incorrectly. 2. When the user calls in to get things fixed, tell him that the problem is in his modem and you don't support that modem - or any modem not purchased from the ISP. 3. The user must buy a modem from the ISP before the ISP will bother to fix things at their end. 4. Profit!
I recently had a ONE MONTH! (to the day) AT&T DSL outage. (My town doesn't have fiber to the home, and fiber to the curb got bundled with the U-verse tarbaby and had several other downsides. So I was on legacy DSL. And as an early adopter it was VERY OLD technology - in Internet Time.)
In the process of decommissioning some of the now-nearly-redundant DSLAMs (as they get most of their customers moved over to U-verse), they moved my legacy DSL line to a new box. This box didn't support the modem I had, and they also screwed up the propagation of the routes so the packets didn't reach the new DLSAM. But they didn't bother to tell me (until they finally let me talk to an actual tech, nearly a month later after purchase of two replacement DSL modems) that they'd made any changes.
My legacy DSL modem was old enough that the web configuration interface was an extra-cost option - which AT&T hadn't chosen to buy. They gave me instructions for getting to the interface (IF it had been present) - and we were both convinced that the modem had failed.
I was unable to find the replacement that they recommended at any (silicon valley!) dealership - including the AT&T phone store. So I purchased a Linksys DSL modem at Best Buy that claimed AT&T (non U-verse) capability. Hooked it up, got the web interface. Had ATM sync (yay!) but no ping (boo!).
Called service to get things running. "Sorry, we don't support that modem. We don't support any modem that we don't sell."
So I bought ANOTHER DSL modem - from an AT&T store - that the store claimed was supported. Also a Linksys. An older model with fewer features, but with AT&T approved firmware and from their own store. And about 1 1/2 times the price.
NOW they were willing to debug the problems in their own plant. After another week, being switched to still another DSLAM (becaue the first one they'd put me on was on a router that had also been decommissioned), and having the routes re-propagated, I was able to get ONE of my (changed!) fixed IP addresses live.
And by this time I was past the return date for the modem from Best Buy. So I ended up with store credit, rather than a refund.
And the new DSL connection is PPPoE over ATM, rather than Ethernet over ATM (which the new DSLAM doesn't support). That adds 8 extra bytes to every packet.
And the official modem I bought from AT&T doesn't support a subnet, so I have to run in bridge mode to get more than the router's own address. I won't get the rest of my (changed!) fixed addresses up until I have time to configure a PPPoE daemon on the firewall/router machine (which is currently running software from before the PPPoE standards were finalized...).
If the card is using a "radio" chip, it is dependent on an antenna. This won't work (unless you find and cut off the antenna wires near the chip).
If it is using a "nearfield" chip, it is dependent on a several-turn loop of wire for the short-rage connection. Cutting that with a razor blade, utility knife, or box knife should disable it adequately. (You can test whether that worked by going back to the terminal and seeing if it no longer responds.)
I'm not aware of whether these dual-mode (padded chip and radio or nearfield) use a single or multiple chips.
A couple seconds in a microwave oven should fry any chip in the card - including the one connected to the pads - and maybe also screw up the mag stripe. So that probably isn't what you want to try.
but as the increasing problems being revealed over maintaining base load when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing indicates that this is because the real costs aren't being accounted for.
You're talking grid-connected sun and wind farms.
I'm talking standalone systems, like solar homes: Panels, charge controller, battery, inverter. Maybe dump load. With enough batteries to cover typical cloudy periods and a backup generator for the odd day or two a year that the system's storage wasn't sized big enough to handle, and you don't NEED a grid connection and covering the grid's base loads.
The process doesn't require light. It uses silicon photovoltaics providing power to a "reverse fuel cell" which coverts CO2 and H2O to H2 and CO (which the Fischer-Tropsch process can turn into diesel fuel, light crude, etc.)
This means the process doesn't have to be deployed as solar panels. It could also be run in an enclosed reactor, driven by electricity. This could be used to turn power from fusion, fission, wind, space-collected-and-downlinked solar, or what have you into oil fuels and chemical feedstocks. (Of course if your prime-mover is solar panels, deploying this combined device might be the easiest/cheapest way to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere.)
Even if the electricity-to-syngas is 100%, using it to make liquid fuel means you're burning post-carnot-cycle energy into liquid fuel. If you then burn it in a heat engine you get to pay the carnot cycle tax again. So from an efficiency standpoint, if you use it to drive vehicles with heat-engines (rather than, say, fuel cells) you won't beat battry-electrics. But without deployment of better batteries the total system price and/or efficiency may be better. Or it may be worth the penalty for the extended range, faster refueling, or ability to use electrical energy from any source to fuel liquid-fuel vehicles or produce chemical feedstocks.
Then in ten years we will wonder what the fuck happened.
The main reason most of these things don't come to market is that inventions are coming so rapidly that something BETTER comes along and obsoletes them before they reach manufacturing and deployment.
Nevertheless, enough make it that things are improving substantially. For instance: Photovoltaic prices recently "crossed-over" grid power costs for much of the temperate-zone sunny sites - even without further government subsidies on manufacture and installation. That's a BIG change from a decade ago.
Syngas can be converted to gasoline or diesel via the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Which also generates a bunch of heat at temperatures moderately above water's boiling point, which must be removed to keep the process in its optimal temperature range. This is suitable for co-generation, producing more electriity than is needed to run the plant. So in addition to clean diesel fuel (or gasoline with a little refining) and a bit of chemical feedstock, you get to feed the grid.
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
It's obvious to a native speaker of English (who isn't astroturfing the Democrats' talking points) that Trump was NOT inviting the Russians to initiate a new crack on his opponent's servers.
He was ribbing his opponents, and keeping their lax security (and their "The Russians are aiding him!" attempt at distraction) in the public eye, by pointing out that the Russians probably ALREADY have the emails that Clinton's people "can't find", and inviting them to dig them out of their own archives and provide them to investigators and/or the press.
People claiming he is inviting new espionage don't just look foolish. They also play into his hands, by keeping the issue in the face of prospective voters.
Having a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restrictions to follow while in the air would absolutely affect interstate commerce. There's really no good rational argument against that.
Yet we have just such a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restriction to follow while on the roads: Speed limits and rules for setting them, turn restrictions, stop and yield sign placement, various rules of the road and its amenities (turn-on-red, where - if at all - U-turns are legal, lane-change frequency restrictions, lane restrictions on trucks (and no-truck routes), passing on the right, maximum durations at rest stops and activity there (such as sleeping or cooking over a fire), and a host of other rules - not to mention their enforcement) all vary from state to state.
It's dependent on each state's government(s) to pass the individual regulations. Yes, there's a lot of standardization, and following federal rules. But the federal rules are followed voluntarily when it's in a state's interest, enforced as a condition of federal funding for construction and maintenance of roads bearing US or Interstate route designations, or encouraged by federal blackmail composed of the withholding of the state's share of funds gathered by the federal gasoline taxes.
Any argument that flying at all is interstate commerce goes double for driving - where long-haul trucks, passenger cars, and even bicycles and pedestrians share common roads. So why does the Federal government have to blackmail the states into legislating their way for regional and local roads, yet can claim it has the right to totally control flight, not just of interstate traffic and/or at interstate altitudes or in the glidepaths around federally-funded airports, but of battery-powered gadgets, with range far to limited to reach a state border from most parts of a state, lighter than the average dog, and all the way down to the grass in your back yard?
Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job
From 49USC app 1301 - the Federal Aviation Act of 1958...
No, no, no. Not what I meant.
From where in the Constitution, in the face of the 10th Amendment and Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886), does the Federal Government's Congress claim to get the power to delegate to such an executive branch agency?
Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job.
(Similarly with the FCC and radio signals that are too weak to be decoded outside the state of origin or substantially interfere with reasonable interstate services. Sure "radio goes on forever". But so does sound - with the same inverse-square law and similar interference characteristics - and we get along just fine without federal regulation of speech and bullhorns.)
Sure, but unless you've developed a superconducting substrate, or come up with a reliable, efficient 3D cooling system, or are willing to run the 3D transistors only at very low speed/power, you're going to run into serious heat dissipation problems.
Back then I was proposing a diamond semiconductor - supported and powered by water-cooled silver busbars. Diamond is extremely conductive thermally. The bandgap is 5.5V, corresponding to the deep ultraviolet, so you can run it very hot without fouling the electrical properties (though you have to keep; it below 752 F or it will gradually degrade.) I'd want to put it in a bottle with an inert atmosphere so it wouldn't oxidize at high temperature, either.
The flip side of the big bandgap is that it consumes more energy - and generates more heat - when switching than current silicon designs which run at about a third that voltage.
These days I'd probably go for layers of graphine, which conducts heat even better than diamond.
With a rectangular solid you can get a LOT of transistors (and their interconnects) into a few cubic feet. The original proposal was for a six-foot cube - 216 cubic feet. Powering and cooling on two faces gives you 72 square feet of heat and power transfer serice, with 432 square feet on the other two faces for optical I/O fibers. Nowadays I'd take a page from Gene Amdahl and go a tad smaller: so, like the 1960s-era cabinets for IBM compter components, the block of logic and its supporting structures would fit into a standard elevator.
The report adds that processors could still continue to fulfill Moore's Law with increased vertical density.
What took them so long?
I've been pointing out that a three-dimensional arrangement off components could continue FAR longer than an essentially single-layer arrangements since at least the 1970s.
I thought that much was obvious, but for those who have not been paying attention, we are close to using up our hydrocarbons.
Maybe four centuries for all sources of fossil carbon, hydrogenated or otherwise, depending on usage rate.
Remember that "reserves" means "the stuff we already found while exploring". Nobody with a financial clue spends today's private money exploring for stuff they won't be digging up and selling for decades. So you only have more than about 20 years of "reserves" when there have been giant finds, the known reserves are too expensive to exploit and there might be easier stuff out there, or too much of the known reserves are unexploitable due to things like government intervention. There's no doubt quite a lot more out there, though it's still finite.
Running out is not a disaster. We can easily make all the stuff that's made from oil and there are other energy sources - including more coming down the pipeline. We're only digging/pumping up most of our energy and much of our chemical feedstocks right now because it's CHEAPER than the alternatives.
But it's not cheaper by much. (Photovoltaic is now becoming competitive with grid power in many areas, even without government market distortions, and the tech just keeps improving.)
By the time the fossil fuels run out we'll have lots of alternatives, and they'll run out by gradually getting more expensive, so people will smoothly transition to alternatives (thanks to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"). The main problem (if the CO2->global warming conjecture is true and substantial) will be keeping the Earth from crashing into the next orbital-mechanics driven Ice Age (as humans MAY have been doing for about the last 10,000 years or so, as the orbital climate-forcing has been curving down steadily.)
The real way to handle it is to create an open source shared black list, have people sign up for a service, and vote when they answer a call on whether or not it is a telemarketer or robo-call.
Caller ID spoofing already broke block lists. By the time a call gets to your local telco there is no way even for them to tell where it really came from. They regularly spoof their identity - often as others they're robo-calling, or even as the phone they are calling.
IMHO the only way available currently is to trace back a particular call, from telco to telco, to see where it DID come from - then go after the actual robocaller. (Good luck getting that implemented, though. Or getting it to work across all countries, rather than letting the spammers run from safe havens.)
Why would you use a heavier-than-air craft to essentially hover? Wouldn't an aerostat accomplish the same goal at a much lower cost, and lower risk of bodily harm should it fall from the sky?
I don't know why they chose it. Here's my take:
An aerostat requires tethers, which are points of failure, and has enormous wind drag. Lose the tether(s) and you lose control. Then you have a large, failing, floating device at the mercy of the winds, dragging first broken tethers, then its own large structure, on an uncontrolled path along the ground, wreaking unknown havoc.
A powered heavier-than-air (but still ultralight) has little drag and can also be made to change locations easily. With good design, if it begins to accumulate failures that jeopardize its continued operational ability, it can be made to fly to a repair site and land - after its backup has arrived to take its place.
If you have catastrophic events - like huricaines, tornadoes, or forest firestoms - it can easily be moved away (to land for shelter or fly around or above the storm) and brought back when the environment is calmer. You don't even have to take it out of service. Just fly it above the tropopause. The stratosphere is probably a good place for it to operate anyhow: Negligible weather, no cloud shadows for solar-powered planes, and gives you a lot of coverage per drone. (Balloons can get there, too, easily. But 50,000 feet or so is a LOT of tether.)
I wonder if the Library of Congress is involved with publishing the Wikileaks email data-dump on the pre-coup activities and post-coup purges the Turkish government is trying to suppress by DOSing them?
Or if the Turkish government personnel THINK it is involved?
Google has how many subscribers now? Somehow, these numbers look astonishingly small
Google has how many employees to process these requests now? Somehow, these numbers look annoyingly huge.
How much does this cost Google to process? How much more does this cost to resist if Google wants to try to protect its customers' data, how much more to research whether each particular customers deserves this effort?
Can Google bill the governments for this service? Does this qualify as a fifth-amendment "taking"? Can google sue for reimbursement of these costs?
How much does this cost Google in lost revenue from people who bail out, or don't join, rather than leave their sensitive data where it is subject to search without their knowledge, and potential disclosure?
How much does incurring these costs result in raised costs or reduced services for Google's customers? How many, and what, services might they have to terminate, or never deploy, or never even develop, because the money that might have provided them is instead eaten by servicing government information requests? How badly does this impact their business models, their stock price, their investors' returns?
Slashdot Mirror
So now we're taking advice on security from a US government agency?
Let's see now.... An inclmplete list from late 2004 through late 2005:
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), August 2014.
- White House, October 2014.
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), November 2014.
- United States Postal Service (USPS), November 2014.
- Department of State, November 2014.
- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), April 2015.
- Department of Defense, April 2015.
- St. Louis Federal Reserve, May 2015.
- Internal Revenue Service, May 2015.
- U.S. Army Web site, June 2015.
- Office of Personnel Management (OPM), June 2015.
- Census Bureau, July 2015.
- Pentagon, August 2015.
Hmmm... FTC isn't in THAT list. Maybe the other agencies should have listened to them. B-)
We're already several years ahead of that curve.
From QUARTZ:
LiFe batteries and steel cage bodies are going to keep the cost of electric cars rather high for a long time.
Drastically raising production and slashing cost of automobile batteries IS what Tesla's $5 billion "Gigafactory" in Nevada is about.
The truth of the matter is that at the prices they're being sold for, most people want a Ford or GM far more than they want a Tesla.
Early adopter costs are high. Then, production of commodity items ramps up and they're sold at a more reasonable price. There are intermediate steps along the way with progressively larger prouction, lower cost, less flashy models.
This isn't just a modern high-tech phenomenon. The internal combustion automobiles went through it, too. They started as rich-people's playthings/status symbols and worked down through things like country-doctor housecall vehicles before Ford's commodity "A" and "T" vehicles put them within reach of the mass of the population. Why should new-tech battery-electric cars be any different?
Weird then that ATT provides instructions on how to use your own router
Another user has pointed out that the instructions are for DSL, not for U-verse. So far, U-verse modems are only available from AT&T.
But you missed the line at the end of the page:
Note: AT&T Tech Support does not support non-AT&T provided routers. Please contact the manufacturer of your router for further assistance.
Which means that if THEY break your service at THEIR end, they won't FIX it until you hook up one of THEIR modems - buying it if necessary.
This happened to me a couple months ago. It took a full month - and the purchase of TWO modems (the second from them after I bought a replacement from not-them for the supposedly failed modem - and they "refused to support it") before THEY bothered to even look at, let alone fix, the problems on THEIR end of the wire.
Now I could use a non-ATT modem. But if my service ever breaks again I'll have to hook up a "supported" modem to get it fixed again. (And you can count on it breaking.)
As you can guess, I'm now looking at other service providers. But from what I hear so far they may be even worse. B-b
Don't think any ISP can force you to use their's. FIOS ones i guess could force their's on you but you should be able to bridge it and use your own anyway.
Sure they can:
1. Break the user's feed by reconfiguring things in the company's plant - and do it incorrectly.
2. When the user calls in to get things fixed, tell him that the problem is in his modem and you don't support that modem - or any modem not purchased from the ISP.
3. The user must buy a modem from the ISP before the ISP will bother to fix things at their end.
4. Profit!
I recently had a ONE MONTH! (to the day) AT&T DSL outage. (My town doesn't have fiber to the home, and fiber to the curb got bundled with the U-verse tarbaby and had several other downsides. So I was on legacy DSL. And as an early adopter it was VERY OLD technology - in Internet Time.)
In the process of decommissioning some of the now-nearly-redundant DSLAMs (as they get most of their customers moved over to U-verse), they moved my legacy DSL line to a new box. This box didn't support the modem I had, and they also screwed up the propagation of the routes so the packets didn't reach the new DLSAM. But they didn't bother to tell me (until they finally let me talk to an actual tech, nearly a month later after purchase of two replacement DSL modems) that they'd made any changes.
My legacy DSL modem was old enough that the web configuration interface was an extra-cost option - which AT&T hadn't chosen to buy. They gave me instructions for getting to the interface (IF it had been present) - and we were both convinced that the modem had failed.
I was unable to find the replacement that they recommended at any (silicon valley!) dealership - including the AT&T phone store. So I purchased a Linksys DSL modem at Best Buy that claimed AT&T (non U-verse) capability. Hooked it up, got the web interface. Had ATM sync (yay!) but no ping (boo!).
Called service to get things running. "Sorry, we don't support that modem. We don't support any modem that we don't sell."
So I bought ANOTHER DSL modem - from an AT&T store - that the store claimed was supported. Also a Linksys. An older model with fewer features, but with AT&T approved firmware and from their own store. And about 1 1/2 times the price.
NOW they were willing to debug the problems in their own plant. After another week, being switched to still another DSLAM (becaue the first one they'd put me on was on a router that had also been decommissioned), and having the routes re-propagated, I was able to get ONE of my (changed!) fixed IP addresses live.
And by this time I was past the return date for the modem from Best Buy. So I ended up with store credit, rather than a refund.
And the new DSL connection is PPPoE over ATM, rather than Ethernet over ATM (which the new DSLAM doesn't support). That adds 8 extra bytes to every packet.
And the official modem I bought from AT&T doesn't support a subnet, so I have to run in bridge mode to get more than the router's own address. I won't get the rest of my (changed!) fixed addresses up until I have time to configure a PPPoE daemon on the firewall/router machine (which is currently running software from before the PPPoE standards were finalized...).
B-b
If the card is using a "radio" chip, it is dependent on an antenna. This won't work (unless you find and cut off the antenna wires near the chip).
If it is using a "nearfield" chip, it is dependent on a several-turn loop of wire for the short-rage connection. Cutting that with a razor blade, utility knife, or box knife should disable it adequately. (You can test whether that worked by going back to the terminal and seeing if it no longer responds.)
I'm not aware of whether these dual-mode (padded chip and radio or nearfield) use a single or multiple chips.
A couple seconds in a microwave oven should fry any chip in the card - including the one connected to the pads - and maybe also screw up the mag stripe. So that probably isn't what you want to try.
but as the increasing problems being revealed over maintaining base load when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing indicates that this is because the real costs aren't being accounted for.
You're talking grid-connected sun and wind farms.
I'm talking standalone systems, like solar homes: Panels, charge controller, battery, inverter. Maybe dump load. With enough batteries to cover typical cloudy periods and a backup generator for the odd day or two a year that the system's storage wasn't sized big enough to handle, and you don't NEED a grid connection and covering the grid's base loads.
Reading TFA, I noticed an interesting point:
The process doesn't require light. It uses silicon photovoltaics providing power to a "reverse fuel cell" which coverts CO2 and H2O to H2 and CO (which the Fischer-Tropsch process can turn into diesel fuel, light crude, etc.)
This means the process doesn't have to be deployed as solar panels. It could also be run in an enclosed reactor, driven by electricity. This could be used to turn power from fusion, fission, wind, space-collected-and-downlinked solar, or what have you into oil fuels and chemical feedstocks. (Of course if your prime-mover is solar panels, deploying this combined device might be the easiest/cheapest way to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere.)
Even if the electricity-to-syngas is 100%, using it to make liquid fuel means you're burning post-carnot-cycle energy into liquid fuel. If you then burn it in a heat engine you get to pay the carnot cycle tax again. So from an efficiency standpoint, if you use it to drive vehicles with heat-engines (rather than, say, fuel cells) you won't beat battry-electrics. But without deployment of better batteries the total system price and/or efficiency may be better. Or it may be worth the penalty for the extended range, faster refueling, or ability to use electrical energy from any source to fuel liquid-fuel vehicles or produce chemical feedstocks.
Then in ten years we will wonder what the fuck happened.
The main reason most of these things don't come to market is that inventions are coming so rapidly that something BETTER comes along and obsoletes them before they reach manufacturing and deployment.
Nevertheless, enough make it that things are improving substantially. For instance: Photovoltaic prices recently "crossed-over" grid power costs for much of the temperate-zone sunny sites - even without further government subsidies on manufacture and installation. That's a BIG change from a decade ago.
Syngas can be converted to gasoline or diesel via the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Which also generates a bunch of heat at temperatures moderately above water's boiling point, which must be removed to keep the process in its optimal temperature range. This is suitable for co-generation, producing more electriity than is needed to run the plant. So in addition to clean diesel fuel (or gasoline with a little refining) and a bit of chemical feedstock, you get to feed the grid.
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
It's obvious to a native speaker of English (who isn't astroturfing the Democrats' talking points) that Trump was NOT inviting the Russians to initiate a new crack on his opponent's servers.
He was ribbing his opponents, and keeping their lax security (and their "The Russians are aiding him!" attempt at distraction) in the public eye, by pointing out that the Russians probably ALREADY have the emails that Clinton's people "can't find", and inviting them to dig them out of their own archives and provide them to investigators and/or the press.
People claiming he is inviting new espionage don't just look foolish. They also play into his hands, by keeping the issue in the face of prospective voters.
But feel free to continue. B-)
Article 1, section 8.
That's an exhaustive list.
To which of its 18 clauses are you referring?
Having a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restrictions to follow while in the air would absolutely affect interstate commerce. There's really no good rational argument against that.
Yet we have just such a patchwork assembly of differing state and local regulations and restriction to follow while on the roads: Speed limits and rules for setting them, turn restrictions, stop and yield sign placement, various rules of the road and its amenities (turn-on-red, where - if at all - U-turns are legal, lane-change frequency restrictions, lane restrictions on trucks (and no-truck routes), passing on the right, maximum durations at rest stops and activity there (such as sleeping or cooking over a fire), and a host of other rules - not to mention their enforcement) all vary from state to state.
It's dependent on each state's government(s) to pass the individual regulations. Yes, there's a lot of standardization, and following federal rules. But the federal rules are followed voluntarily when it's in a state's interest, enforced as a condition of federal funding for construction and maintenance of roads bearing US or Interstate route designations, or encouraged by federal blackmail composed of the withholding of the state's share of funds gathered by the federal gasoline taxes.
Any argument that flying at all is interstate commerce goes double for driving - where long-haul trucks, passenger cars, and even bicycles and pedestrians share common roads. So why does the Federal government have to blackmail the states into legislating their way for regional and local roads, yet can claim it has the right to totally control flight, not just of interstate traffic and/or at interstate altitudes or in the glidepaths around federally-funded airports, but of battery-powered gadgets, with range far to limited to reach a state border from most parts of a state, lighter than the average dog, and all the way down to the grass in your back yard?
Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job
From 49USC app 1301 - the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 ...
No, no, no. Not what I meant.
From where in the Constitution, in the face of the 10th Amendment and Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886), does the Federal Government's Congress claim to get the power to delegate to such an executive branch agency?
I'm curious:
Where does the FAA claim it gets the power to regulate drones which are only engaged in INTRA-state commerce and flying too low to interfere with interstate air traffic? Seems to me that's the state's job.
(Similarly with the FCC and radio signals that are too weak to be decoded outside the state of origin or substantially interfere with reasonable interstate services. Sure "radio goes on forever". But so does sound - with the same inverse-square law and similar interference characteristics - and we get along just fine without federal regulation of speech and bullhorns.)
Cooling issues.
Diamond. Graphine.
They're not "thermal superconductors'. But they're DAMN good thermal conductors.
Sure, but unless you've developed a superconducting substrate, or come up with a reliable, efficient 3D cooling system, or are willing to run the 3D transistors only at very low speed/power, you're going to run into serious heat dissipation problems.
Back then I was proposing a diamond semiconductor - supported and powered by water-cooled silver busbars. Diamond is extremely conductive thermally. The bandgap is 5.5V, corresponding to the deep ultraviolet, so you can run it very hot without fouling the electrical properties (though you have to keep; it below 752 F or it will gradually degrade.) I'd want to put it in a bottle with an inert atmosphere so it wouldn't oxidize at high temperature, either.
The flip side of the big bandgap is that it consumes more energy - and generates more heat - when switching than current silicon designs which run at about a third that voltage.
These days I'd probably go for layers of graphine, which conducts heat even better than diamond.
With a rectangular solid you can get a LOT of transistors (and their interconnects) into a few cubic feet. The original proposal was for a six-foot cube - 216 cubic feet. Powering and cooling on two faces gives you 72 square feet of heat and power transfer serice, with 432 square feet on the other two faces for optical I/O fibers. Nowadays I'd take a page from Gene Amdahl and go a tad smaller: so, like the 1960s-era cabinets for IBM compter components, the block of logic and its supporting structures would fit into a standard elevator.
The report adds that processors could still continue to fulfill Moore's Law with increased vertical density.
What took them so long?
I've been pointing out that a three-dimensional arrangement off components could continue FAR longer than an essentially single-layer arrangements since at least the 1970s.
I thought that much was obvious, but for those who have not been paying attention, we are close to using up our hydrocarbons.
Maybe four centuries for all sources of fossil carbon, hydrogenated or otherwise, depending on usage rate.
Remember that "reserves" means "the stuff we already found while exploring". Nobody with a financial clue spends today's private money exploring for stuff they won't be digging up and selling for decades. So you only have more than about 20 years of "reserves" when there have been giant finds, the known reserves are too expensive to exploit and there might be easier stuff out there, or too much of the known reserves are unexploitable due to things like government intervention. There's no doubt quite a lot more out there, though it's still finite.
Running out is not a disaster. We can easily make all the stuff that's made from oil and there are other energy sources - including more coming down the pipeline. We're only digging/pumping up most of our energy and much of our chemical feedstocks right now because it's CHEAPER than the alternatives.
But it's not cheaper by much. (Photovoltaic is now becoming competitive with grid power in many areas, even without government market distortions, and the tech just keeps improving.)
By the time the fossil fuels run out we'll have lots of alternatives, and they'll run out by gradually getting more expensive, so people will smoothly transition to alternatives (thanks to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"). The main problem (if the CO2->global warming conjecture is true and substantial) will be keeping the Earth from crashing into the next orbital-mechanics driven Ice Age (as humans MAY have been doing for about the last 10,000 years or so, as the orbital climate-forcing has been curving down steadily.)
The real way to handle it is to create an open source shared black list, have people sign up for a service, and vote when they answer a call on whether or not it is a telemarketer or robo-call.
Caller ID spoofing already broke block lists. By the time a call gets to your local telco there is no way even for them to tell where it really came from. They regularly spoof their identity - often as others they're robo-calling, or even as the phone they are calling.
IMHO the only way available currently is to trace back a particular call, from telco to telco, to see where it DID come from - then go after the actual robocaller. (Good luck getting that implemented, though. Or getting it to work across all countries, rather than letting the spammers run from safe havens.)
Why would you use a heavier-than-air craft to essentially hover? Wouldn't an aerostat accomplish the same goal at a much lower cost, and lower risk of bodily harm should it fall from the sky?
I don't know why they chose it. Here's my take:
An aerostat requires tethers, which are points of failure, and has enormous wind drag. Lose the tether(s) and you lose control. Then you have a large, failing, floating device at the mercy of the winds, dragging first broken tethers, then its own large structure, on an uncontrolled path along the ground, wreaking unknown havoc.
A powered heavier-than-air (but still ultralight) has little drag and can also be made to change locations easily. With good design, if it begins to accumulate failures that jeopardize its continued operational ability, it can be made to fly to a repair site and land - after its backup has arrived to take its place.
If you have catastrophic events - like huricaines, tornadoes, or forest firestoms - it can easily be moved away (to land for shelter or fly around or above the storm) and brought back when the environment is calmer. You don't even have to take it out of service. Just fly it above the tropopause. The stratosphere is probably a good place for it to operate anyhow: Negligible weather, no cloud shadows for solar-powered planes, and gives you a lot of coverage per drone. (Balloons can get there, too, easily. But 50,000 feet or so is a LOT of tether.)
Over the past few years, Firefox has implemented Web APIs to replace functionality that was formerly provided only by plugins.
But will they play Badger Badger Badger?
Until that can be emulated on the "replacement functionality", removing Flash is a fundamental impact on the Internet Experience. ;-)
I wonder if the Library of Congress is involved with publishing the Wikileaks email data-dump on the pre-coup activities and post-coup purges the Turkish government is trying to suppress by DOSing them?
Or if the Turkish government personnel THINK it is involved?
Google has how many subscribers now? Somehow, these numbers look astonishingly small
Google has how many employees to process these requests now? Somehow, these numbers look annoyingly huge.
How much does this cost Google to process? How much more does this cost to resist if Google wants to try to protect its customers' data, how much more to research whether each particular customers deserves this effort?
Can Google bill the governments for this service? Does this qualify as a fifth-amendment "taking"? Can google sue for reimbursement of these costs?
How much does this cost Google in lost revenue from people who bail out, or don't join, rather than leave their sensitive data where it is subject to search without their knowledge, and potential disclosure?
How much does incurring these costs result in raised costs or reduced services for Google's customers? How many, and what, services might they have to terminate, or never deploy, or never even develop, because the money that might have provided them is instead eaten by servicing government information requests? How badly does this impact their business models, their stock price, their investors' returns?