I think it's deeper than that. When I talk on the phone I'm definitely less aware of what I'm seeing. It's as if your brain transports you to an imaginary vision-less world that you and your friend occupy. Probably similar to when you become 'immersed' in TV and don't notice anything outside the screen.
Due to the fact that actual 'grey goo'-style nanotechnology is many decades away, people have latched on to the nanotech buzzword by describing anything whose *components* are nano-scale as nanotechnology. For example if you put really small particles in paint and that makes it have interesting properties, that makes it 'nanotechnology'. In this case the nanotubes themselves are nano-sized.
It is indeed silly, but otherwise we wouldn't have much that we could really call nano-technology.
The problem with clean vehicles at the moment is energy storage. Batteries are expensive, complicated and not very good. Fuel cells are still developing and not very efficient. Petrol on the other hand is a proven energy storage technology. If you could manufacture petrol (or something similar) just using atmospheric CO2 and solar energy, you would effectively make all cars 'green'.
Of course it will be impossible to get enough energy to do that from solar energy. Oh well!
It *is* a problem with the software. The software is designed for use by *people*. People who may not remember to change the default password.
Easy solution - disable the product until the password is changed and intercept http connections so you can give people a helpful page saying "The default password is 'password'. This must be changed before this router/switch can be used. Click [here] to do so."
I fail to see any flaws with this solution. Also read 'The Design of Everyday Things'.
I disagree. At least in England, and especially university students, almost no-one has heard of friendster. Everyone has heard of myspace and at least 90% of college students, and a large proportion of non-college students have profiles.
This gives it enormous network value - who's going to leave a site that all their friends are on (unless they screw up badly)?
But I think the most significant thing keeping people on facebook (other than the fact that there's no serious competition), is all their uploaded photos. No-one is going to upload several hundred photos to a different site, tag them again, and get all their friends to upload *their* photos too.
Facebook is going to be around for a while yet. And before you say "But I'm not on it so it must suck", remember that you probably don't have the average social life. Or friends.
"My grandmother, my girlfriend, my mother [...] are all Linux users now"
I'd bet good money on that being because you told them about it, installed it for them, showed them how to use it, and help them with any problems they have. Doesn't apply to most people.
Re:The only thing really not broken... yet
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
The article only gives 4 schemes, and CSS is the only one that has been truly irreversibly cracked.
All the other can be easily updated to make the existing cracks useless. Although admittedly the AACS LA seem to be pretty rubbish at actually doing that.
But they haven't got the player key. The got the title keys for some discs. All that will happen is the software player's device key will be revoked and new discs will be pressed with a different title key. The software will be updated to hide the title keys better and the current 'crack' will be then completely useless.
As far as I can see it the only decent ways to allow reliable playback are:
1) A group of pirates finds a device key and makes releases, but doesn't reveal the device key that they used. Then the MPAA can't revoke it.
or
2) A large number of popular hardware device keys are found. It is unlikely that the MPAA would revoke them all. This can't happen yet as very few hardware players have been sold.
It is unlikely that a cryptographic flaw in AES will be found.
the idea that we're simply going to do that 100 meter test 965,600 more times
Yes but that assumes that the second hundred metres is just as hard as the first - it's not.
As has been said before, we currently don't have a material anywhere near strong enough to build a usable space elevator. And you can't just use more material - it is the strength to weight ratio that matters.
In England, petrol costs almost exactly £1/litre. That's $7/gallon.
Personally I agree with the high levels of tax - they probably make the price more similar to the environmental cost.
Although to all the people who say 'use public transport', it isn't very good. Buses are slow and fairly expensive - alright for travelling in towns, but rubbish for the country. And trains are just far too expensive - it cost me less to go from anywhere in Suffolk to Amsterdam, than it did to go from Ipswich to Manchester. And that's with a railcard (1/3 off).
That's just plain wrong. You need a temperature difference to generate electricity*. I.E. if he wanted to run AC from the heat outdoors, you would need a cooler (or hotter) place too in order to generate electricity. Using a hotter place is just a conventional power station, and if you *have* a cooler place, why do you need AC? Just connect your house to the cold place with pipes.
You see, the whole problem is this driving around for free business, or lack thereof. The oil companies will not want this, so the car manufacturers will not want it. Your local government wil not want it. How much is this going to cost? If it is the same gasoline for the same period, it will be over $32,000. See where the problems might be?
That's a ridiculous argument. If we actually could make a car that didn't need refuelling for 30 years don't you think someone would start making and selling them? I'm sure the government would love it, and oil companies don't *actually* control everyone in the world.
In Wavelets, you would scale the image down to 2x2, and this would be one layer of the image. Then you'd scale it down to 4x4, and scale up the 2x2 image with bilinear filtering and subtract it from the 4x4 image. The 4x4 difference image now represents a different set of frequencies than the 2x2 image did. You store the difference because what you're interested in is the frequency of the 4x4 layer. You want to add that frequency on top of the 2x2 layer when you reconstruct the image, and if you have that "frequency" seperated out, you can compress the data better.
No you don't. Maybe you're thinking of the Laplacian pyramid.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's deeper than that. When I talk on the phone I'm definitely less aware of what I'm seeing. It's as if your brain transports you to an imaginary vision-less world that you and your friend occupy. Probably similar to when you become 'immersed' in TV and don't notice anything outside the screen.
Probably because it is above the file's Nyquist frequency. It could also be that MP3 discards insane frequencies.
Due to the fact that actual 'grey goo'-style nanotechnology is many decades away, people have latched on to the nanotech buzzword by describing anything whose *components* are nano-scale as nanotechnology. For example if you put really small particles in paint and that makes it have interesting properties, that makes it 'nanotechnology'. In this case the nanotubes themselves are nano-sized.
It is indeed silly, but otherwise we wouldn't have much that we could really call nano-technology.
Oh no! Mercury! Save us!
I always thought a bomb inside a piece of cheese would be easiest. Completely sealed, homogeneous and would probably fool the dogs.
Well it *would* have led to pretty big explosions! Thankfully they evacuated the area and managed to put the fire out anyway.
Rubbish. In that context he clearly meant *exactly* 90 mm in the same way that CDs are 120 mm (not 120.000 mm). Don't be so pedantic.
The problem with clean vehicles at the moment is energy storage. Batteries are expensive, complicated and not very good. Fuel cells are still developing and not very efficient. Petrol on the other hand is a proven energy storage technology. If you could manufacture petrol (or something similar) just using atmospheric CO2 and solar energy, you would effectively make all cars 'green'.
Of course it will be impossible to get enough energy to do that from solar energy. Oh well!
It *is* a problem with the software. The software is designed for use by *people*. People who may not remember to change the default password.
Easy solution - disable the product until the password is changed and intercept http connections so you can give people a helpful page saying "The default password is 'password'. This must be changed before this router/switch can be used. Click [here] to do so."
I fail to see any flaws with this solution. Also read 'The Design of Everyday Things'.
I disagree. At least in England, and especially university students, almost no-one has heard of friendster. Everyone has heard of myspace and at least 90% of college students, and a large proportion of non-college students have profiles.
This gives it enormous network value - who's going to leave a site that all their friends are on (unless they screw up badly)?
But I think the most significant thing keeping people on facebook (other than the fact that there's no serious competition), is all their uploaded photos. No-one is going to upload several hundred photos to a different site, tag them again, and get all their friends to upload *their* photos too.
Facebook is going to be around for a while yet. And before you say "But I'm not on it so it must suck", remember that you probably don't have the average social life. Or friends.
Yeah. If you include the required 18-month contract, the iPhone will cost *at least* £900 in the UK (=$1800). £900!
That made me cringe. Now I know why women always specifically want a man with a good sense of humour.
The Cloud isn't free - £7/month for one device, £10/month for many devices. Not bad if you live in central London though.
"My grandmother, my girlfriend, my mother [...] are all Linux users now"
I'd bet good money on that being because you told them about it, installed it for them, showed them how to use it, and help them with any problems they have. Doesn't apply to most people.
The article only gives 4 schemes, and CSS is the only one that has been truly irreversibly cracked.
All the other can be easily updated to make the existing cracks useless. Although admittedly the AACS LA seem to be pretty rubbish at actually doing that.
Yeah, *if* you know the name of the driver ('nvidia-glx-new' dontchaknow?) and *if* it's in the repository.
For example, how do install the eyetoy driver under linux? For windows I just search for 'eyetoy driver' and find this helpful page:
http://www.iplayplaystation.com/eyetoy-as-webcam/
Linux? Not a clue.
Simpler solution: Charge for local calls. Costs 6p for an hour in the UK & I rarely get called marketers.
Seriously! No-one has cracked AACS! This is not a flaw in the AACS system! The MPAA *predicted* this! They expected it! Arrrgh. How many times?...
All they have to do is tell the WinDVD developers to hide the key better, and revoke their old key. Then it will be back to square 1.
But they haven't got the player key. The got the title keys for some discs. All that will happen is the software player's device key will be revoked and new discs will be pressed with a different title key. The software will be updated to hide the title keys better and the current 'crack' will be then completely useless.
As far as I can see it the only decent ways to allow reliable playback are:
1) A group of pirates finds a device key and makes releases, but doesn't reveal the device key that they used. Then the MPAA can't revoke it.
or
2) A large number of popular hardware device keys are found. It is unlikely that the MPAA would revoke them all. This can't happen yet as very few hardware players have been sold.
It is unlikely that a cryptographic flaw in AES will be found.
I'd love it if Cambridge Uni Library replaced their rubbish software with something like this, but can it scale to millions of books?
the idea that we're simply going to do that 100 meter test 965,600 more times
Yes but that assumes that the second hundred metres is just as hard as the first - it's not.
As has been said before, we currently don't have a material anywhere near strong enough to build a usable space elevator. And you can't just use more material - it is the strength to weight ratio that matters.
$5/gal gasoline is coming.
In England, petrol costs almost exactly £1/litre. That's $7/gallon.
Personally I agree with the high levels of tax - they probably make the price more similar to the environmental cost.
Although to all the people who say 'use public transport', it isn't very good. Buses are slow and fairly expensive - alright for travelling in towns, but rubbish for the country. And trains are just far too expensive - it cost me less to go from anywhere in Suffolk to Amsterdam, than it did to go from Ipswich to Manchester. And that's with a railcard (1/3 off).
That's just plain wrong. You need a temperature difference to generate electricity*. I.E. if he wanted to run AC from the heat outdoors, you would need a cooler (or hotter) place too in order to generate electricity. Using a hotter place is just a conventional power station, and if you *have* a cooler place, why do you need AC? Just connect your house to the cold place with pipes.
*If you don't believe me, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle
Especially: efficiency = 1 - (t_cold / t_hot)
You see, the whole problem is this driving around for free business, or lack thereof. The oil companies will not want this, so the car manufacturers will not want it. Your local government wil not want it. How much is this going to cost? If it is the same gasoline for the same period, it will be over $32,000. See where the problems might be?
That's a ridiculous argument. If we actually could make a car that didn't need refuelling for 30 years don't you think someone would start making and selling them? I'm sure the government would love it, and oil companies don't *actually* control everyone in the world.
In Wavelets, you would scale the image down to 2x2, and this would be one layer of the image. Then you'd scale it down to 4x4, and scale up the 2x2 image with bilinear filtering and subtract it from the 4x4 image. The 4x4 difference image now represents a different set of frequencies than the 2x2 image did. You store the difference because what you're interested in is the frequency of the 4x4 layer. You want to add that frequency on top of the 2x2 layer when you reconstruct the image, and if you have that "frequency" seperated out, you can compress the data better.
No you don't. Maybe you're thinking of the Laplacian pyramid.
Yes, there is some sexual innuendo involved but that makes it even more fun.
Errr... sexual?