From everyone else's perspective, there's a constant stream of annoying drones flying overhead (and occasionally crashing into their neighborhood) destroying their ability to peacefully enjoy their backyards. I guess that's an externality that just doesn't need to be considered.
That's why Amazon is going to have their drones fly in at altitude, balloon down to complete the delivery and back up, out of the annoyingly loud range.
It's funny that Trump can't block people on Twitter because that would infringe on people's rights to communicate but somehow Twitter can ban whoever they like and that doesn't infringe on those exact same rights.
A bit of an inconsistency there.
There is no inconsistency. A judge ruled that replies to Trump's tweets were protected by the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech". Twitter is not the government, they are not bound by the First Amendment, only by their terms of service, to which every user must agree. The terms of service unsurprisingly say users get to keep using the service only so long as they conform to Twitter's rules.
maybe they will pull their heads in and sell something consumers want
I won't pay more than $400 for a phone
I need root access without having to risk bricking the device
The battery must be easily replaceable
It must have a standard audio jack
Is this so hard?
I don't want a notch. I want the phone to be thick enough to hold a battery that will last longer. The extra thickness and making the sides less slick will make it less likely to slip out of my hand. The reduced chance of dropping the phone means they can go back to making the glass more scratch resistant. They could make the front glass easier to replace if it does crack. The one thing I can compromise on is a memory card slot; if they build in a decent amount (minimum 128GB) of storage without jacking the price (a name-brand 128 GB micro SD card is only $25), I can do without the slot.
It sure seems like the wonders of modern polymers and composites should allow creation of a phone that can charge wirelessly (unlike metal), survive modest falls (unlike glass), and still provide the "luxury" feel that will convince some people to pay $1000 for a $300 item.
I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this? Efficiency gains in collection are only going to be incremental and not Nobel Prize worthy paradigm shifts, right? The real prize is in conversion. Correct my thinking here.
Covering the entire collection area with cheap concentrators and a fraction of the area with expensive, high-efficiency converters might be more economical than covering the entire area with cheap, low-efficiency converters.
In other words, the metric to maximize is kW h/$, not % conversion efficiency.
Yep. But when you aged bulldog farts the house will stink for days.
Unlike Gates' claim that "The problems with today's reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation.", that is a problem that might actually be solvable with innovation, like charcoal filters, or heat-exchanging house ventilation.
As others have answered, "several" in this context means a vague small number.
I'd like to point out that when writing up a news article, the author should have taken several minutes to look up exactly how long ago the X32 ABI was introduced.
If a useful treatment for obesity ever arises from this research, my money would be on a drug that suppresses the activity of this gene, rather than genetic engineering.
If Camry outsold the Equinox (290,000) by 100,000, then 390,000 Camrys were sold, more than the CR-V (378,000), ranked #6. But Camry is not one of the top six listed. If the basic facts are wrong, why should I believe the conclusions in this article?
I found a page that has 2017's top sellers as
1. Ford F-Series 896,764
2. Chevy Silverado 585,864
3. Ram Truck 500,723
4. Toyota RAV4 407,594
5. Nissan Rogue 403,465
6. Toyota Camry 387,081
7. Honda CR-V 377,895
8. Honda Civic 377,286
9. Toyota Corolla 329,196
10. Honda Accord 322,655
11. Ford Escape 308,296
12. Chevy Equinox 290,458
According to that list, the "leading American SUV" is the Ford Escape (not the Chevy Equinox). In 2017 Ford (not Chevy) sold 79,000 (not 100,000) fewer than Toyota sold Camrys. To me, that doesn't change the gist of the article. Ford and GM are dropping cars from their lineups to focus on more profitable trucks and SUVs, while Toyota and Honda are still selling plenty of cars, while the Nissan Rogue, Toyota RAV4, and Honda CR-V are handily outselling Ford Escape and Chevy Equinox.
Next time the price of gas goes up it'll be bailout time once more for Detroit.
We are stuck on this rock till the Sun blows us up, and that's it.
I don't know why I care--I'll be long gone--but I like to think there's a slight probability that a lucky (maybe!) few humans leave on generational ships.
A competitive ISP market doesn't guarantee that at least one provider will offer reasonably priced, net-neutral service. We need net neutrality mandated by law even if there are multiple high-speed, low-latency ISPs serving every area.
My favorite Windows install was on the laptops used by two developers we hired. They ran Windows 3.x on 1MB machines so that they could then run their development environment -- Multi Edit (for DOS) and a DOS shell where the finished ap could be run/tested -- all at the same time. Seemed insane. Worked.
DESQview might have been a better choice. Several colleagues and I used it in much the same way as your two devs, with Brief as the text editor instead of Multi-Edit.
I know this is Slashdot and nowadays people don't even read the summary, let alone the article, much less the actual paper to which the article links, but there's an awful lot of straw littering the floor here.
The chaff bugs are inserted by an automated tool, they will not have to be written or worked around by people writing the actual code.
The authors are aware that the chaff bugs must not be exploitable.
The authors are aware that they will face automated tools for finding bugs and determining their exploitability.
The authors are aware that this is just a proof-of-concept and would require refinement to be useful in the real world.
They did in fact test their chaff bugs against a fuzzer, which found them. They took steps to ensure that the bad behavior is actually harmless (for example, overwrites go to areas of memory that aren't actually used).
How do you see this making software harder to maintain? The chaff bugs are inserted by an automated tool, maintainers looking at the source code will never see them.
For testing, run the test cases against chaffed and unchaffed builds. Test cases that fail in both are probably real bugs. Test cases that fail only in chaffed are probably chaff bugs. Test cases that fail only in unchaffed are probably serious trouble.
Great non-intuitive idea that clearly came out of academia. Clearly Dolan-Gavitt has never worked for a living.
What's with the hostility toward academia? Lots of great ideas have come out of academia. No academic myself, just decades of writing real-world software, during which I've learned not to judge other people, especially without reading their work.
They would not be indistinguishable from the real thing to a skilled hacker; the idea is that they would be so numerous as to make the effort of finding the actual exploitable bugs uneconomical.
The paper says the injected bugs are triggered by comparing an input value to a trigger constant. Dead code elimination cannot remove them because they depend on values that will not be known until run time.
It also explains that they make the chaff bugs unexploitable (or at least, attempt to do so) by limiting what memory locations they overwrite or which values are written.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits legislation that forbids people from keeping their "papers and effects" encrypted when no warrant has been issued. When a warrant has been issued:
nor shall any person [...] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
The Fifth Amendment forbids compelling anyone to provide self-incriminating testimony, why should compelling anyone to provide self-incriminating evidence be any different?
Mandating key escrow might be constitutional. Then they could convict for the crime of having an un-escrowed encrypted device even if they couldn't prove terrorism or pedo charges. Remember, Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, not murder or racketeering.
If the old equipment presents MORE value and then leaves a perfectly good tower to refit for further power generation, that can only improve on the worst case of blow up and cut up.
Towers that are currently decades old would probably need to be replaced by taller ones because the most cost-effective blade size has gone up over the past few decades (https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/growth-of-wind-turbine-size.html).
The energy returned on energy invested for wind is about 18. For each watt-hour (not watt, watt is a unit of power, not energy) put into building and using a wind turbine, it will produce about 18 watt-hours of energy.
We cannot have a sustainable society based on fossil energy anyway. Add the problem of CO2 emissions and it becomes apparent that the transition to renewable energy sources must accelerate.
Slashdot Mirror
From everyone else's perspective, there's a constant stream of annoying drones flying overhead (and occasionally crashing into their neighborhood) destroying their ability to peacefully enjoy their backyards. I guess that's an externality that just doesn't need to be considered.
That's why Amazon is going to have their drones fly in at altitude, balloon down to complete the delivery and back up, out of the annoyingly loud range.
It's funny that Trump can't block people on Twitter because that would infringe on people's rights to communicate but somehow Twitter can ban whoever they like and that doesn't infringe on those exact same rights.
A bit of an inconsistency there.
There is no inconsistency. A judge ruled that replies to Trump's tweets were protected by the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech". Twitter is not the government, they are not bound by the First Amendment, only by their terms of service, to which every user must agree. The terms of service unsurprisingly say users get to keep using the service only so long as they conform to Twitter's rules.
Who would buy a proprietary box for a single use case in this era?
You won't be buying a proprietary box, you'll be renting it, and the box will be "in the cloud", not on your premises.
maybe they will pull their heads in and sell something consumers want
I won't pay more than $400 for a phone
I need root access without having to risk bricking the device
The battery must be easily replaceable
It must have a standard audio jack
Is this so hard?
I don't want a notch.
I want the phone to be thick enough to hold a battery that will last longer.
The extra thickness and making the sides less slick will make it less likely to slip out of my hand.
The reduced chance of dropping the phone means they can go back to making the glass more scratch resistant.
They could make the front glass easier to replace if it does crack.
The one thing I can compromise on is a memory card slot; if they build in a decent amount (minimum 128GB) of storage without jacking the price (a name-brand 128 GB micro SD card is only $25), I can do without the slot.
It sure seems like the wonders of modern polymers and composites should allow creation of a phone that can charge wirelessly (unlike metal), survive modest falls (unlike glass), and still provide the "luxury" feel that will convince some people to pay $1000 for a $300 item.
Or you live where there's a HOA that bans antennas on your house.
In the United States, an HOA cannot ban antennas for over-the-air reception.
I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this? Efficiency gains in collection are only going to be incremental and not Nobel Prize worthy paradigm shifts, right? The real prize is in conversion. Correct my thinking here.
Covering the entire collection area with cheap concentrators and a fraction of the area with expensive, high-efficiency converters might be more economical than covering the entire area with cheap, low-efficiency converters.
In other words, the metric to maximize is kW h/$, not % conversion efficiency.
Yep. But when you aged bulldog farts the house will stink for days.
Unlike Gates' claim that "The problems with today's reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation.", that is a problem that might actually be solvable with innovation, like charcoal filters, or heat-exchanging house ventilation.
She's not only naturally better than her peers, she's magically better than everybody else, and from previous films "That's not how the force works!".
Did you notice that title, "The Force Awakens"? The Force itself is asserting sentience, and acting through Rey.
The deal about "how the Force works" has been altered. It is the filmmakers' prerogative to alter it further.
As others have answered, "several" in this context means a vague small number.
I'd like to point out that when writing up a news article, the author should have taken several minutes to look up exactly how long ago the X32 ABI was introduced.
"It was just six years ago..."
If a useful treatment for obesity ever arises from this research, my money would be on a drug that suppresses the activity of this gene, rather than genetic engineering.
If Camry outsold the Equinox (290,000) by 100,000, then 390,000 Camrys were sold, more than the CR-V (378,000), ranked #6. But Camry is not one of the top six listed. If the basic facts are wrong, why should I believe the conclusions in this article?
I think the author mixed sales numbers for the full year 2017 with a list of top sellers for the first half of 2018.
I found a page that has 2017's top sellers as
1. Ford F-Series 896,764
2. Chevy Silverado 585,864
3. Ram Truck 500,723
4. Toyota RAV4 407,594
5. Nissan Rogue 403,465
6. Toyota Camry 387,081
7. Honda CR-V 377,895
8. Honda Civic 377,286
9. Toyota Corolla 329,196
10. Honda Accord 322,655
11. Ford Escape 308,296
12. Chevy Equinox 290,458
Those numbers match the ones on http://carsalesbase.com/us-car..., cited as the source of numbers in the article.
According to that list, the "leading American SUV" is the Ford Escape (not the Chevy Equinox). In 2017 Ford (not Chevy) sold 79,000 (not 100,000) fewer than Toyota sold Camrys. To me, that doesn't change the gist of the article. Ford and GM are dropping cars from their lineups to focus on more profitable trucks and SUVs, while Toyota and Honda are still selling plenty of cars, while the Nissan Rogue, Toyota RAV4, and Honda CR-V are handily outselling Ford Escape and Chevy Equinox.
Next time the price of gas goes up it'll be bailout time once more for Detroit.
We are stuck on this rock till the Sun blows us up, and that's it.
I don't know why I care--I'll be long gone--but I like to think there's a slight probability that a lucky (maybe!) few humans leave on generational ships.
39. Be not a grumbler.
40. Be not a detractor.
Just those two make a very good start. Also see the FidoNet rules:
Don't be excessively annoying.
Don't be easily annoyed.
A competitive ISP market doesn't guarantee that at least one provider will offer reasonably priced, net-neutral service. We need net neutrality mandated by law even if there are multiple high-speed, low-latency ISPs serving every area.
My favorite Windows install was on the laptops used by two developers we hired. They ran Windows 3.x on 1MB machines so that they could then run their development environment -- Multi Edit (for DOS) and a DOS shell where the finished ap could be run/tested -- all at the same time. Seemed insane. Worked.
DESQview might have been a better choice. Several colleagues and I used it in much the same way as your two devs, with Brief as the text editor instead of Multi-Edit.
I'm on the fence here. I do think Oracle is in the right (Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view.") Such a 10B monopoly cannot be allowed to happen.
AWS and Azure each do over $20B a year (and growing), adding $1B a year more to either one will not create a monopoly.
I know this is Slashdot and nowadays people don't even read the summary, let alone the article, much less the actual paper to which the article links, but there's an awful lot of straw littering the floor here.
The chaff bugs are inserted by an automated tool, they will not have to be written or worked around by people writing the actual code.
The authors are aware that the chaff bugs must not be exploitable.
The authors are aware that they will face automated tools for finding bugs and determining their exploitability.
The authors are aware that this is just a proof-of-concept and would require refinement to be useful in the real world.
They did in fact test their chaff bugs against a fuzzer, which found them. They took steps to ensure that the bad behavior is actually harmless (for example, overwrites go to areas of memory that aren't actually used).
How do you see this making software harder to maintain? The chaff bugs are inserted by an automated tool, maintainers looking at the source code will never see them.
For testing, run the test cases against chaffed and unchaffed builds. Test cases that fail in both are probably real bugs. Test cases that fail only in chaffed are probably chaff bugs. Test cases that fail only in unchaffed are probably serious trouble.
I can't see how to do this without spending a lot of time ensuring that the bugs you are adding are non-exploitable.
Oddly enough, the authors of the paper explain this in section IV-B Ensuring Non-Exploitability
Great non-intuitive idea that clearly came out of academia. Clearly Dolan-Gavitt has never worked for a living.
What's with the hostility toward academia? Lots of great ideas have come out of academia. No academic myself, just decades of writing real-world software, during which I've learned not to judge other people, especially without reading their work.
The chaff bugs would be inserted by an automated tool. No need for programmers to make up anything.
They would not be indistinguishable from the real thing to a skilled hacker; the idea is that they would be so numerous as to make the effort of finding the actual exploitable bugs uneconomical.
The paper says the injected bugs are triggered by comparing an input value to a trigger constant. Dead code elimination cannot remove them because they depend on values that will not be known until run time.
It also explains that they make the chaff bugs unexploitable (or at least, attempt to do so) by limiting what memory locations they overwrite or which values are written.
We already have relevant laws:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits legislation that forbids people from keeping their "papers and effects" encrypted when no warrant has been issued. When a warrant has been issued:
nor shall any person [...] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
The Fifth Amendment forbids compelling anyone to provide self-incriminating testimony, why should compelling anyone to provide self-incriminating evidence be any different?
Mandating key escrow might be constitutional. Then they could convict for the crime of having an un-escrowed encrypted device even if they couldn't prove terrorism or pedo charges. Remember, Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, not murder or racketeering.
If the old equipment presents MORE value and then leaves a perfectly good tower to refit for further power generation, that can only improve on the worst case of blow up and cut up.
Towers that are currently decades old would probably need to be replaced by taller ones because the most cost-effective blade size has gone up over the past few decades (https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/growth-of-wind-turbine-size.html).
We cannot have a sustainable society based on fossil energy anyway. Add the problem of CO2 emissions and it becomes apparent that the transition to renewable energy sources must accelerate.