Since it is legal to carry bottles of gin or vodka on board (just not consume them), and also cigarette lighters, I don't see these fuel cells as being any different. Remember that they have been many documented cases of laptop and cell phone batteries shorting and burning up and yet these are all still allowable...
The nice thing about "normal" batteries is that I can go to my hotel room and recharge them. The last thing I need to be doing is wandering around vegas at three in the morning trying to find some hydrogen to power my notebook for the big presentation in the morning.
It should be possible to make a fuel cell that accepts ethanol as well as methanol... Plenty of places to get gin or vodka in Vegas at 3am...
We are in the process of building a Solar array for our summer home and I was blown away at the inefficiencies in DC to AC conversion. In fact they were on the order of 30% - 40% and the amount of solar power needed to maintain any sort of charge on the battery system was way more than expected. We found that finding a nice balance between AC and DC lighting would be the best win in our case as the efficiencies in DC to DC conversion (yes I was surprised about this one too) were much greater.
Well, of course, that is a little unfair... What you mean when you talk about the inefficiency of DC->AC conversion is DC to 120VAC. Nearly all efficient, moderate to high power DC->DC conversion actually is DC->AC->DC and thus goes through an AC step. So DC->AC conversion must be more efficient than DC->DC conversion. Of course it may not give you 120VAC and not pure sine output...
This means what I think it does. We need to convert away from AC to DC power! Companies would save billions because almost all our devices would be simplier to design and build. As I understand it, it is alot simpler to convert DC to DC than AC to DC or DC to AC.
No, sorry, it is NOT simpler to convert DC to DC than AC to DC or DC to AC, particularly if you want to maintain good efficiency as well as simplicity.
In fact, to efficiently do DC->DC, most circuits actually do DC->AC->DC, again using a transformer to do the voltage step-up-down. A transformer is the most efficient way of doing voltage conversion (really impedence matching), at least when moderate to large amounts of power are involved, and transformers require AC to work.
I don't know the original reasons for 120V instead of 220V, but I've touched 120V plenty of times and am thankful that it wasn't 220V instead...
I serious doubt that house wiring losses matter that much in going from 120V to 220V and I don't see that 220V appliances from Europe use substantially lighter gauge wiring for their power cords.
To bring the USA "in line with the rest of the world" (remember all those funky 220V plug/adapters one needs for Europe, what "in line" ?), you'd need to move to 50Hz as well. There is just no point (have to change video RS170, etc, etc).
Remember the primary reason for shipping around (transmission) power using AC is the EASE (simplicity, cost) of using stepdown transformers to change the V*I mix and resultant voltage, it is really power to impedence matching. So unless you have MANY devices that will NATIVELY use a common low voltage DC level, e.g. 12V, you haven't gained anything, in fact you are probably contributing to more power waste (i.e. poor impedence matching).
When I say "natively" use 12V, this means that the core circuit really wants 12V. If you are thinking, well, 5V is less than 12V, so that should work too, NO... What are you going to do with that extra 7V ? Well, unless you are into countless DC-DC converters for every single device, you are going to WASTE that 7V x current == POWER in the form of heat. You are much better off using the 120VAC->7V stepdown transformer -- less wasted power). Then you have devices like a common stereo or fluorescent backlighting for LCD displays. These devices REQUIRE much higher voltages, from 30-100V (12V through 8ohm speakers just isn't enough audio power). There just isn't enough commonality in DC power requires to establish a common supply that would make sure, nevermind the fat cables that would be required to carry the current (low voltage, same power, higher currents).
Isn't it just the transformer that makes the power supply inefficient (and also heavy)?
I've never understood why they don't just bridge-rectify mains to get DC, then feed the result ( via a suitable resistor and smoothing capacitor ) straight into some voltage regulators . Obviously the marketable version would require some safety mechanisms.
Wouldn't it also approach 100% efficiency, assuming the voltage regulators were reasonably efficient?
No, the power transformer is generally not the greatest source of inefficiency.
Instead your proposed dropping resistors or similar linear voltage regulators (so-called "series pass" configuration) would, by far, be the greatest power wasters. It is simple Ohm's Law: V=I*R. So you have a certain resistor. You are planning to use it to reduce the resulting voltage (that is called "voltage drop"). Therefore current must flow for that resistor to have that voltage drop. The produce of that voltage drop and the current flow, P = V*I is POWER, which is ALL wasted as HEAT. More sophisticated linear voltage regulators are NO different, same principle, except that R changes in time (e.g. transistor), but power is wasted in the same way.
Switching supplies ARE different and generally much more efficient, and indeed many common DC supplies, such as standard 100-240VAC adapters for laptops, etc do directly rectify AC mains, then generate and AC power signal and push that through a hi-frequency stepdown transformer. Because of the hi-frequency, the transformer can be much smaller and lighter (less iron). Voltage regulation is down via feedback, not via linear, power-wasting "series pass" regulators.
There are many answers to this question and many different ways to look at it. Here are a couple:
1) Because the whole electronics industry has already been built up on electronics based on DC supplies, all chips, the circuits learned in EE class for common functions, etc.
2) The semiconductor technology that 98% of our electronics know-how is based on operates on low voltages, so you'd have to convert the higher 120-220-400 line and transmission voltages to low voltages anyways.
3) Most electronic active components in our current technology (semiconductors, even tubes), are asymmetric with regards to polarity and do not have "friendly" characteristics with truly bipolar (AC) signals and supplies.
4) Much of electronics can be viewed as tasks in signal processing, particularly signals that vary in time. AC power is itself electrical power that varies in time (e.g. 50-60hz). Therefore using AC as a supply into circuit would inherent introduce a LARGE signal on top of any signals you were actually interested in.
5) Batteries are inherently DC sources, so making circuits that can run of both batteries and an AC power source would be more complicated if the circuit required AC to run (you'd have to build the equivalent of a DC->AC inverter which is considerably more difficult than a AC->DC power supply, and doing so would waste battery power (inefficiencies in conversion), which is much more precious in most applications than wasting power originating from an AC powerline source.
Uh I think you'd get a lot farther by convincing everybody to use those fluorescent bulb replacements for the standard 40-75watt incandescent bulbs -- the technology is already here and on the market, it yields long term savings in bulb costs AND short term energy savings of a much high percentage (perhaps going from 30% to 70%) instead of the more incremental improvements on 60-70% of PC switching supplies, plus I'm sure a far greater proportion of total national energy is used on those bulbs and lighting than PC power.
In short, there is almost NO reason to not use those fluorescent bulbs and it would result in a far greater amount of energy savings right now...
Guess its time to short Symmantec and McAfee stock... the variants are endless, but they all lead to one thing: MS "Antivirus" eventually getting 100% "market share".
Let's see...
MS AV is the most effective AV product because they can put in special hooks in Windows/Outlook to allow better AV protection and detection, but only MS AV knows how to use those hooks, or...
MS^H^HSome hacker can "inadvertently" release a virus of their own that only MS AV can stop (for any number of reasons, indeed, who would know better how to write a nasty virus for Windows but MS itself, and of course the best way to drive MS AV sales is for there to be lots of nasty viruses running around), or...
MS AV is quickest to protect against new viruses because Windows can be altered to add in special virus detection and reporting services that report new virus data directly back to MS, or...
MS AV will include and become the only or the most effective way of getting new patches (ostensibly just against new viri, but in actuality, all Windows bugs), ala Windows Update (for a subscription fee, of course). Free Windows Update may remain, but the MS AV will become the enterprise standard for updating and protecting Windows, (again for a fee, just a way of charging for patches), or...
Given better internal virus detection within Windows, it may be possible to construct a Windows "immune system" that learns how to protect itself. Intimate access to Windows internals required.
Then there is always the, "We changed our minds and decided to bundle MS AV in the next release of Windows (since it was hard to find enough other reasons for customers to see that Windows XXXXP is a value-added proposition for $200 a copy)".
The beginning of the end for yet another sector of the 3rd Windows software/utilities market...
Indeed, between my cable TV service and Road Runner, I'm paying out to TimeWarner more than $90/month...
why gee that's more than $1000/year. Ouch! Yeah, with those numbers, one can easily imagine that hardware will be "free"...
Until OLED's can demonstrate very long lifetimes (like at least 25,000 hours) and avoid the screen burn issue that plagues CRT and plasma displays, I don't think they will have substantial market share for widescreen home theater displays.
Already, DLP has become quite popular for large screen home theater monitors...
Well you seem to be forgetting that the bulb life in a typical DLP projector is only 1000-2000 hours and those things are *expensive* to replace, at $200-500 each.
For home theatre, 1000-2000 hours lifetime is probably tolerable. But for daily PC or laptop use, no way... I agree you want something like 25,000 hours for computer usage...
Um, you realize if we can't get enouch energy from the Sun to support our lifestyle, we're doomed. It's the ONLY source of new (not stored) energy for trillions of miles. Then again, if a 360 trillion terawatt fusion plant in the sky isn't enough for us, maybe we all deserve to die.
uh... well, why do you say that the Sun represents "new" energy, not stored... It is of course stored. Only the Big Bang was "new" energy. So then it is just an issue of time scales. The sun will run down and die just like our oil supplies will run out (they're stored solar energy too). The big diff is time scales. Presumably by the time the sun has problems hopefully we will have adapted and moved on. Well, the same with fission, fusion and everything else. The argument is that redeveloping our fission capabilities gives us the time window to transition to something better at the same time we hopefully reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. It is all about time scales and windows of opportunities and making the right choices for the particular point in time.
Maybe Scott Bacula could re-discover the Nexus and meet Patrick Stewart AND Shatner and Shatner could make them all scrambled eggs, and then they could all ride horses together and chit-chat as Enterprise captains could only do...
He seems like a duck out of water in anything else.
My God, man! How can you say that about him after seeing his inspired acting on T. J. Hooker and the amazing hosting abilities displayed on Rescue 911! With such versatility, I would be surprised if he couldn't sing just as well, too!!!
Or Shatner in that Columbo episode, where he murders his wife, then plays dumb... (wait... didn't that mirror his real life)... (except that Columbo doesn't let him get away with it, unlike in his real life...)
Except that Apple doesn't own the PPC. And of course M$ doesn't own x86. So the question is whether IBM will decide to keep on developing the PPC in the face of a continued onslaught of the x86 (it costs so much to make a competitive chip foundry with the latest geometry capabilities required to keep on the current bleeding edge performance curve). All others have died out... (Sparc nearly, MIPS, NS32000, 88000, WE32000, 68K, Alpha, VAX, etc).
Apple could move to x86, still build their own proprietary hardware, and stay relatively "vertical" with respect to M$.
There is no doubt that Apple already has OS X ported to the x86 architecture. What there is of OS X that isn't Darwin or FreeBSD (both run on x86) is largely based on the NextStep and NextStep was ported to the x86. So there is no doubt that OS X is around internally on x86. If ever Apple decides to give up on PPCs (not inconceivable (insert all old arguments about the difficulties of competing with x86/Intel/$10B chip foundries/etc)), then it must be ready with an OS X for the x86, so you know that Apple has x86 OS X internally just as a smart business precaution, to hedge its bets. But Apple is going to be extremely cautious about deciding to actually market and release x86 OS X... I think you can see why...
There is no doubt that Apple already has OS X ported to the x86 architecture. What there is of OS X that isn't Darwin or FreeBSD (both run on x86) is largely based on the NextStep and NextStep was ported to the x86. So there is no doubt that OS X is around internally on x86. If ever Apple decides to give up on PPCs (not inconceivable (insert all old arguments about the difficulties of competing with x86/Intel/$10B chip foundries/etc)), then it must be ready with an OS X for the x86, so you know that Apple has x86 OS X internally just as a smart business precaution, to hedge its bets. But Apple is going to be extremely cautious about deciding to actually market and release x86 OS X... I think you can see why...
what you say don't make sense...
like saying, see this TV screen when it is OFF, that is how black (or white) it can ever be...
a white wall with NO light illuminating it will be just as black as a black wall...
rear projection can have just as much problem with stray light as front projection. in addition, it inherently MUST absorb light and re-scatter it in order to create an image plane, which means that there is a substantial light loss (otherwise just use a piece of clear glass as the screen ? whoops, no image). therefore rear projection tends to always appear darker, which you are spinning as "darker blacks", but really means, low "gain".
furthermore, yeah everyone loves more contrast, but actually the problem with many projectors is often too much contrast, at least for movies. for computer display, one tends to like a lot of contrast to read text, etc. but to view images, too much contrast wrecks the images (and movies).
An Infocus LP 330 runs about $400, an LP335 about
$500 and an LP350 about $700. If you time is worth anything at all, just get one of those. I personally use a LP350 and there is just no way I would attempt to build one of these myself (includes lots of fancy video processing chips, line doubler, etc). Just the high-pressure lamp to get 1000-2000 lumen output itself costs a couple hundred. While you're at it, if you see a spare bulb on ebay for the projector you get, it is well worth it to pick it up. The LP350 bulb is good for 2000 hours. The kids love the thing and it is something that I trust them to operate, unlike any probable homemade projector.
Cute but they would have to be really stupid to implement their silly red light in a way that would set up your scenerio.
Obviously, if you get a red light because you're speeding towards the intersection, that CANNOT mean that the other side IMMEDIATELY switches to green. That is so obviously a sure recipe for a huge increase in accidents. It is obvious that the other side must wait for a period not too dissimilar from your side just switching to yellow (instead of red).
Regardless, the whole idea seems stupid to me, as if a red light is "punishment". You speed, it is illegal, if a cop is around, you get a ticket, if not, nothing. You cross a red light, it is illegal, if a cop is around, you get a ticket, if not, then nothing. What's the difference ? What's the added "punishment" ? Nothing.
The only thing you have succeeded in doing is increase the chances for accidents and you are relying on the chances of an accident as the deterent for speeding. But it should be anyways. That is a very poor type of law, from a public policy standpoint, depending on safety from accidents to enforce compliance. Easy material for a lawsuit against the government.
I'm all for companies making their products more "hackable" and all that this additional empowerment of the consumer that it implies. But as usual, with empowerment, there is a downside as well as an upside. The article just touches upon it when it refers to the issue of liabilities.
I remember a Law and Order episode where a gun manufacturer purposely designed their product, a legal, single-fire gun to be hackable. A minor hack, which they did not sell or acknowledge, but which was described on a third-party website and even available as a kit from a third-party, turned this gun into an illegal automatic machine gun. Naturally the episode was about how a perp bought the legal gun, did the hack and took out a whole office (then committed suicide). So just where does the responsibility lie when a hack can be used for bad as well as good and how much is it a company's responsibility to foresee all the possible bad uses for hacks to their products ?
Actually, on the contrary, here at our medical school/university, they have begun to DISALLOW the usage of personal laptops and desktops on our campus network. The theory is that if the university doesn't own the equipment 1) if there is any kind of security breach, data lossage, break-in, virus-spread that causes significant damages (read *legal* damages), it will get very messy if someone's personal equipment is involved, 2) then the university will have a much more difficult time mandating that a personal laptop run specific virus scanners, security software, OS's at certain patch levels etc. The situation is more critical here because of the medical school and associated hospital and the national HIPAA rules, all of which contribute to potentially large legal liabilities, either for HIPAA infractions, or if someone sues, etc.
It is a pain, indeed, but there *are* some valid reasons for controlling what equipment is brought on campus. It does create problems, e.g. a visiting professor brings his own laptop, or a company wants to provide on loan some equipment, or you are doing a joint research project with another institution and they send you some equipment to use, etc...
"Eric's company, Gold Disk Canada Inc., gathered lists of email addresses and sold them for $29.99 for 100,000 email addresses on up to $1,599.99 for 10 million addresses."
I'm kinda wondering whether my email addresses came in the cheapo $29.99 version, or if I qualified for the $1599.99 Deluxe package...
Slashdot Mirror
Since it is legal to carry bottles of gin or vodka on board (just not consume them), and also cigarette lighters, I don't see these fuel cells as being any different. Remember that they have been many documented cases of laptop and cell phone batteries shorting and burning up and yet these are all still allowable...
Did they remember to emit a warp signature ?
In fact, to efficiently do DC->DC, most circuits actually do DC->AC->DC, again using a transformer to do the voltage step-up-down. A transformer is the most efficient way of doing voltage conversion (really impedence matching), at least when moderate to large amounts of power are involved, and transformers require AC to work.
I don't know the original reasons for 120V instead of 220V, but I've touched 120V plenty of times and am thankful that it wasn't 220V instead... I serious doubt that house wiring losses matter that much in going from 120V to 220V and I don't see that 220V appliances from Europe use substantially lighter gauge wiring for their power cords.
To bring the USA "in line with the rest of the world" (remember all those funky 220V plug/adapters one needs for Europe, what "in line" ?), you'd need to move to 50Hz as well. There is just no point (have to change video RS170, etc, etc).
Remember the primary reason for shipping around (transmission) power using AC is the EASE (simplicity, cost) of using stepdown transformers to change the V*I mix and resultant voltage, it is really power to impedence matching. So unless you have MANY devices that will NATIVELY use a common low voltage DC level, e.g. 12V, you haven't gained anything, in fact you are probably contributing to more power waste (i.e. poor impedence matching). When I say "natively" use 12V, this means that the core circuit really wants 12V. If you are thinking, well, 5V is less than 12V, so that should work too, NO... What are you going to do with that extra 7V ? Well, unless you are into countless DC-DC converters for every single device, you are going to WASTE that 7V x current == POWER in the form of heat. You are much better off using the 120VAC->7V stepdown transformer -- less wasted power). Then you have devices like a common stereo or fluorescent backlighting for LCD displays. These devices REQUIRE much higher voltages, from 30-100V (12V through 8ohm speakers just isn't enough audio power). There just isn't enough commonality in DC power requires to establish a common supply that would make sure, nevermind the fat cables that would be required to carry the current (low voltage, same power, higher currents).
Switching supplies ARE different and generally much more efficient, and indeed many common DC supplies, such as standard 100-240VAC adapters for laptops, etc do directly rectify AC mains, then generate and AC power signal and push that through a hi-frequency stepdown transformer. Because of the hi-frequency, the transformer can be much smaller and lighter (less iron). Voltage regulation is down via feedback, not via linear, power-wasting "series pass" regulators.
1) Because the whole electronics industry has already been built up on electronics based on DC supplies, all chips, the circuits learned in EE class for common functions, etc.
2) The semiconductor technology that 98% of our electronics know-how is based on operates on low voltages, so you'd have to convert the higher 120-220-400 line and transmission voltages to low voltages anyways.
3) Most electronic active components in our current technology (semiconductors, even tubes), are asymmetric with regards to polarity and do not have "friendly" characteristics with truly bipolar (AC) signals and supplies.
4) Much of electronics can be viewed as tasks in signal processing, particularly signals that vary in time. AC power is itself electrical power that varies in time (e.g. 50-60hz). Therefore using AC as a supply into circuit would inherent introduce a LARGE signal on top of any signals you were actually interested in.
5) Batteries are inherently DC sources, so making circuits that can run of both batteries and an AC power source would be more complicated if the circuit required AC to run (you'd have to build the equivalent of a DC->AC inverter which is considerably more difficult than a AC->DC power supply, and doing so would waste battery power (inefficiencies in conversion), which is much more precious in most applications than wasting power originating from an AC powerline source.
In short, there is almost NO reason to not use those fluorescent bulbs and it would result in a far greater amount of energy savings right now...
Let's see...
MS AV is the most effective AV product because they can put in special hooks in Windows/Outlook to allow better AV protection and detection, but only MS AV knows how to use those hooks, or...
MS^H^HSome hacker can "inadvertently" release a virus of their own that only MS AV can stop (for any number of reasons, indeed, who would know better how to write a nasty virus for Windows but MS itself, and of course the best way to drive MS AV sales is for there to be lots of nasty viruses running around), or...
MS AV is quickest to protect against new viruses because Windows can be altered to add in special virus detection and reporting services that report new virus data directly back to MS, or...
MS AV will include and become the only or the most effective way of getting new patches (ostensibly just against new viri, but in actuality, all Windows bugs), ala Windows Update (for a subscription fee, of course). Free Windows Update may remain, but the MS AV will become the enterprise standard for updating and protecting Windows, (again for a fee, just a way of charging for patches), or...
Given better internal virus detection within Windows, it may be possible to construct a Windows "immune system" that learns how to protect itself. Intimate access to Windows internals required.
Then there is always the, "We changed our minds and decided to bundle MS AV in the next release of Windows (since it was hard to find enough other reasons for customers to see that Windows XXXXP is a value-added proposition for $200 a copy)".
The beginning of the end for yet another sector of the 3rd Windows software/utilities market...
Indeed, between my cable TV service and Road Runner, I'm paying out to TimeWarner more than $90/month... why gee that's more than $1000/year. Ouch! Yeah, with those numbers, one can easily imagine that hardware will be "free"...
Maybe Scott Bacula could re-discover the Nexus and meet Patrick Stewart AND Shatner and Shatner could make them all scrambled eggs, and then they could all ride horses together and chit-chat as Enterprise captains could only do...
Except that Apple doesn't own the PPC. And of course M$ doesn't own x86. So the question is whether IBM will decide to keep on developing the PPC in the face of a continued onslaught of the x86 (it costs so much to make a competitive chip foundry with the latest geometry capabilities required to keep on the current bleeding edge performance curve). All others have died out... (Sparc nearly, MIPS, NS32000, 88000, WE32000, 68K, Alpha, VAX, etc). Apple could move to x86, still build their own proprietary hardware, and stay relatively "vertical" with respect to M$.
There is no doubt that Apple already has OS X ported to the x86 architecture. What there is of OS X that isn't Darwin or FreeBSD (both run on x86) is largely based on the NextStep and NextStep was ported to the x86. So there is no doubt that OS X is around internally on x86. If ever Apple decides to give up on PPCs (not inconceivable (insert all old arguments about the difficulties of competing with x86/Intel/$10B chip foundries/etc)), then it must be ready with an OS X for the x86, so you know that Apple has x86 OS X internally just as a smart business precaution, to hedge its bets. But Apple is going to be extremely cautious about deciding to actually market and release x86 OS X... I think you can see why...
There is no doubt that Apple already has OS X ported to the x86 architecture. What there is of OS X that isn't Darwin or FreeBSD (both run on x86) is largely based on the NextStep and NextStep was ported to the x86. So there is no doubt that OS X is around internally on x86. If ever Apple decides to give up on PPCs (not inconceivable (insert all old arguments about the difficulties of competing with x86/Intel/$10B chip foundries/etc)), then it must be ready with an OS X for the x86, so you know that Apple has x86 OS X internally just as a smart business precaution, to hedge its bets. But Apple is going to be extremely cautious about deciding to actually market and release x86 OS X... I think you can see why...
what you say don't make sense... like saying, see this TV screen when it is OFF, that is how black (or white) it can ever be... a white wall with NO light illuminating it will be just as black as a black wall... rear projection can have just as much problem with stray light as front projection. in addition, it inherently MUST absorb light and re-scatter it in order to create an image plane, which means that there is a substantial light loss (otherwise just use a piece of clear glass as the screen ? whoops, no image). therefore rear projection tends to always appear darker, which you are spinning as "darker blacks", but really means, low "gain". furthermore, yeah everyone loves more contrast, but actually the problem with many projectors is often too much contrast, at least for movies. for computer display, one tends to like a lot of contrast to read text, etc. but to view images, too much contrast wrecks the images (and movies).
An Infocus LP 330 runs about $400, an LP335 about $500 and an LP350 about $700. If you time is worth anything at all, just get one of those. I personally use a LP350 and there is just no way I would attempt to build one of these myself (includes lots of fancy video processing chips, line doubler, etc). Just the high-pressure lamp to get 1000-2000 lumen output itself costs a couple hundred. While you're at it, if you see a spare bulb on ebay for the projector you get, it is well worth it to pick it up. The LP350 bulb is good for 2000 hours. The kids love the thing and it is something that I trust them to operate, unlike any probable homemade projector.
Obviously, if you get a red light because you're speeding towards the intersection, that CANNOT mean that the other side IMMEDIATELY switches to green. That is so obviously a sure recipe for a huge increase in accidents. It is obvious that the other side must wait for a period not too dissimilar from your side just switching to yellow (instead of red).
Regardless, the whole idea seems stupid to me, as if a red light is "punishment". You speed, it is illegal, if a cop is around, you get a ticket, if not, nothing. You cross a red light, it is illegal, if a cop is around, you get a ticket, if not, then nothing. What's the difference ? What's the added "punishment" ? Nothing.
The only thing you have succeeded in doing is increase the chances for accidents and you are relying on the chances of an accident as the deterent for speeding. But it should be anyways. That is a very poor type of law, from a public policy standpoint, depending on safety from accidents to enforce compliance. Easy material for a lawsuit against the government.
I remember a Law and Order episode where a gun manufacturer purposely designed their product, a legal, single-fire gun to be hackable. A minor hack, which they did not sell or acknowledge, but which was described on a third-party website and even available as a kit from a third-party, turned this gun into an illegal automatic machine gun. Naturally the episode was about how a perp bought the legal gun, did the hack and took out a whole office (then committed suicide). So just where does the responsibility lie when a hack can be used for bad as well as good and how much is it a company's responsibility to foresee all the possible bad uses for hacks to their products ?
It is a pain, indeed, but there *are* some valid reasons for controlling what equipment is brought on campus. It does create problems, e.g. a visiting professor brings his own laptop, or a company wants to provide on loan some equipment, or you are doing a joint research project with another institution and they send you some equipment to use, etc...
I'm kinda wondering whether my email addresses came in the cheapo $29.99 version, or if I qualified for the $1599.99 Deluxe package...