I wouldn't be so sure about that. The most likely reasoning for this device getting nixed was that it was likely relying on Part 97 rules for access to additional frequencies/power levels, and it was hams themselves who went after it. As in "don't put this crap in our band". (Since encryption for the purposes of obfuscation is a no-no for Part 97 operation.)
WRONG. The FCC Part 97 rules themselves explicitly forbid encryption for the purposes of obscuring the message.
(Spread spectrum techniques can be considered encryption, which is why SS is only allowed if you publish your spreading algorithm. Encryption for the purposes of "data whitening" is OK as long as the key you're using is published somewhere.)
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act assertion is absurd. I can not see in any way that this could result in a violation of that. (It could be used as a tool as part of OTHER activities that are violations, but its use in and of itself would not be a violation.)
However, the "ham" part of the name indicated that it was probably using an amateur radio (ham) service. This service requires operators to be licensed, and has its own rules very different from that of the ISM bands.
In many cases, ham bands and ISM bands overlap. The ham bands sometimes extend outside of the frequency range of the ISM bands, and also licensed ham operation is subject to different rules than ISM devices. Key differences: 1) Licensed amateur radio operators can use MUCH higher power levels than ISM devices. They can legally interfere with ISM devices (although doing this is frowned upon by most hams) - In most of the ISM bands, the military is the primary user, amateur radio is secondary (In some areas, military radars operate in the ham/ISM bands. IIRC there was an interesting situation a few years ago where no one could use certain brands of garage door openers near a military base because the big radar was interfering.), ISM devices are tertiary. Lower-class users must accept interference from higher-class users and can't interfere with them. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/proj... 2) Operating under Part 97 (ham) rules instead of Part 15 (ISM) rules means that you can't use encryption for the purposes of obfuscating data
I suspect that something about this device made it require operation under Part 97 rules to function, but encryption is a no-no under such rules. Also, it seems like they intended to sell this/encourage its use by unlicensed operators despite the device being a Part 97 device.
"Finally, the spam filter is better than ever at rooting out email impersonation—that nasty source of most phishing scams. Thanks to new machine learning signals, Gmail can now figure out whether a message actually came from its sender, and keep bogus email at bay."
As if that crap didn't false-positive on me way too much already.
In fact, from reading up on Pao - her "termination" was a pseudo-termination. If I'm reading what I see correctly, they "terminated" her from direct involvement with investments but offered her an "operational" position (as in, manager).
(If I'm reading http://recode.net/2015/03/12/l... - they basically pulled her from investing but offered her five months of pay to transition to being an executive at one of their portfolio companies, i.e. a company that they had a stake in).
All of the evidence (including her fuckups at Reddit) indicates she was marginally competent and KP tried to move her into a role where she wasn't over her head. She was overconfident in her capabilities and sued them.
America the Beautiful was not written by the United States Navy Band. They are, obviously, one of the groups that performed it.
Not sure if the tune in question was synthesized or if this was a playback of a USNB recording. Being modern, it could be that someone owns rights to the USNB's recordings. (Although I find it VERY strange that a commercial entity would hold rights to a government band.)
If it was just the melody, that predates America the Beautiful based on the sources I can find quickly. (yeah, Wikipedia...)
Nuclear stations usually have 80-90% capacity factor as do most other "baseload" plants including coal
Natural gas plants often run intentionally at lower capacity factor since they're usually built specifically for peaking. In the US, that's around 42%
PV Solar is usually only 13-20% (13-15% in MA, 19% in Arizona)
Concentrated solar power often has a lot of "inertia" in the plant along with built-in storage, so apparently CSP in California achieves a 33% capacity factor
Wind is 20-40%
Hydro varies widely since many countries intentionally overbuild nameplate capacity in order to use a hydro dam for energy storage. (I believe Norway's hydro stations operate at a pretty low capacity factor, but this is partly because Norway acts as Denmark's "battery" and is the sole reason Denmark can achieve around 20% grid penetration of wind/solar.)
So if the installations of solar nameplate capacity matched new coal nameplate capacity installations, in terms of actual contribution to the grid, solar is only contributing 20-30% of what the new coal/nuke/whatever plants are contributing. Another way of thinking about it is that you need MUCH more solar nameplate capacity along with a vast improvement in energy storage in order to match a baseload plant such as a nuclear station.
Also note that this is new installations - most gas/coal plants have already been built, and when renovated/modernized they don't count as "new".
The problem is that software and hardware are so tightly integrated these days that if a company can't produce reliable embedded software, all of their hardware looks like shit.
That's why I never had issues with my Nexus 4 or Nexus 5 but, as stated before, will NEVER touch any non-Nexus LG phone.
Yeah, the Nexus devices often have their own software flaws (oops, considering they're supposed to be reference devices), but nothing nearly as bad as the shitfest that is LG's own software.
Yeah. So far, fracking has been primarily used in areas that are sparsely populated and/or don't have much surface water (e.g. dry with not much rainfall).
There are lots of examples of local contamination... Drinking water supplies in Dimock, PA have basically been destroyed by fracking.
The big controversy is the Marcellus Shale in NYS - It's a massive resource pretty much located over either the Susquehanna watershed, or worse, the NYC water supply - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
NYC's water supply is the largest untreated or one of the least-treated drinking water supplies in the world, partly due to much stricter conservation easements of the water supply than in many other areas. Allowing fracking in that region could completely change the results of this report in terms of "widespread" contamination.
See, the problem is, no one has had issues with widespread systemic impacts.
They have issues with an ALARMINGLY high number of local impacts. Also, I wonder if this is just evaulating the actual fracturing process itself, or if it is including things such as companies dumping produced water 100 feet from a stream (It's happened multiple times - they're not allowed to do it, but underpaid truck drivers take shortcuts.)
Also, part of the reason we haven't had widespread impacts is because people who live in areas with large surface drinking water supplies (as opposed to primary drinking water being underground aquifers) have been fighting hard - New York City has one of the largest untreated water supplies in the world, and it is fed by a network of reservoirs and streams upstate. NYS has been good about keeping fracking AWAY from this infrastructure.
It's just a matter of time before those local impacts become systemic if fracking is allowed in more areas.
That's the disappointing thing - when a trusted name gets acquired by shady people, and those shady people milk the name for all it is worth.
I haven't been going to SF nearly as much lately, something just seemed "off" - now I'm glad I almost never go there.
It reminds me of what happened to a fairly popular hosting site for Android development projects, dev-host. d-h used to be a pretty good service, but sometime in the last year, they started replacing downloads with malware/adware.
Well, Windscale was never used for civilian power production. I think nearly all of the reactors designed for weapons production were far less safe than nearly any civilian design.
And yeah, the Magnox reactors weren't very safe either, although they're better IMO than the RBMK design.
CANDU are, to my knowledge, the only other civilian reactors in use to have a positive void coefficient, but at least in their case the moderator (heavy water) isn't flammable...
I haven't heard too many issues about Sony LP... That said, right around when they deployed LP to the Z3 is when I finally unlocked the bootloader and started running Omni on it.
That said - 5.0 was in general a steaming pile of poo, which is why so many OEMs are just skipping to 5.1 now. 5.0 was such poo that Google changed the version number to get away from the stigma, in reality, 5.1 was more like a 5.0.3... But it was important in that it fixed the biggest issues with 5.0.x
You're not guaranteed regular updates with Cyngn phones either.
They burned their first hardware partner even more than they burned OnePlus with the MicroMax exclusivity mess - the Oppo N1 didn't get a KitKat update from Cyngn until November 2014.
Moto G is most definitely not water resistant. Any member of Sony's Xperia Z family - yes. Moto G - no.
I never had any issues with my Nexus 4 or Nexus 5. LG's hardware is pretty good, it's their software that is utterly atrocious (generally a common theme for Asian companies, partly because Asian markets seem to care more about how shiny and colorful their skin is than whether their phone is a bugridden POS running outdated software...), which is why I will never buy an LG device that is not a Nexus. (Same goes for Samsungs... I used to be a heavy Samsung user, but after the way they handled Superbrick... never again...)
Gas is not the best option. It may burn clean, but the process of extracting it is NOT clean.
The problem is that the contamination is much more diffuse/widespread, so you can't say "OMG LOOK THREE MILE ISLAND! BAD!" - even though TMI led to less negative health effects for the environment than gas drilling in just a single town (Dimock, PA).
Solar and wind won't be able to meet our needs for another few decades as we don't have sufficient energy storage technology to make them viable yet (Tesla's making great strides here, but one has to wonder - what might the hidden environmental costs here be? For example, the permanent magnet motors used in nearly all electric and hybrid vehicles use rare earth magnets - http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...
We need one more generation of nuclear to bridge the gap, using modernized reactors with improved safety. (Ideally, research into improved reactors/fuel cycles like the IFR wouldn't have been killed 2 decades ago and they'd be ready for construction now... If I recall one calculation, the IFR could've met our energy needs for 100 years using only the stockpiles of LWR waste we had in the mid-late 1990s.)
Vitrification may be OK for the high-level short-lived (approx. 200 years to decay to safe levels) stuff that would have come out of the IFR's integrated fuel cycle, but I'm fairly certain it's not OK for long-lived transuranics...
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The most likely reasoning for this device getting nixed was that it was likely relying on Part 97 rules for access to additional frequencies/power levels, and it was hams themselves who went after it. As in "don't put this crap in our band". (Since encryption for the purposes of obfuscation is a no-no for Part 97 operation.)
WRONG. The FCC Part 97 rules themselves explicitly forbid encryption for the purposes of obscuring the message.
(Spread spectrum techniques can be considered encryption, which is why SS is only allowed if you publish your spreading algorithm. Encryption for the purposes of "data whitening" is OK as long as the key you're using is published somewhere.)
They'll find your proxy. They'll figure out what the interface is on the next hop. Then they'll hunt that interface.
Yes, multistage/multi-transmitter foxhunts are a thing too. http://www.qsl.net/n2ki/HVDFA/...
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act assertion is absurd. I can not see in any way that this could result in a violation of that. (It could be used as a tool as part of OTHER activities that are violations, but its use in and of itself would not be a violation.)
However, the "ham" part of the name indicated that it was probably using an amateur radio (ham) service. This service requires operators to be licensed, and has its own rules very different from that of the ISM bands.
In many cases, ham bands and ISM bands overlap. The ham bands sometimes extend outside of the frequency range of the ISM bands, and also licensed ham operation is subject to different rules than ISM devices. Key differences:
1) Licensed amateur radio operators can use MUCH higher power levels than ISM devices. They can legally interfere with ISM devices (although doing this is frowned upon by most hams) - In most of the ISM bands, the military is the primary user, amateur radio is secondary (In some areas, military radars operate in the ham/ISM bands. IIRC there was an interesting situation a few years ago where no one could use certain brands of garage door openers near a military base because the big radar was interfering.), ISM devices are tertiary. Lower-class users must accept interference from higher-class users and can't interfere with them. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/proj...
2) Operating under Part 97 (ham) rules instead of Part 15 (ISM) rules means that you can't use encryption for the purposes of obfuscating data
I suspect that something about this device made it require operation under Part 97 rules to function, but encryption is a no-no under such rules. Also, it seems like they intended to sell this/encourage its use by unlicensed operators despite the device being a Part 97 device.
"Finally, the spam filter is better than ever at rooting out email impersonation—that nasty source of most phishing scams. Thanks to new machine learning signals, Gmail can now figure out whether a message actually came from its sender, and keep bogus email at bay."
As if that crap didn't false-positive on me way too much already.
In fact, from reading up on Pao - her "termination" was a pseudo-termination. If I'm reading what I see correctly, they "terminated" her from direct involvement with investments but offered her an "operational" position (as in, manager).
(If I'm reading http://recode.net/2015/03/12/l... - they basically pulled her from investing but offered her five months of pay to transition to being an executive at one of their portfolio companies, i.e. a company that they had a stake in).
All of the evidence (including her fuckups at Reddit) indicates she was marginally competent and KP tried to move her into a role where she wasn't over her head. She was overconfident in her capabilities and sued them.
America the Beautiful was not written by the United States Navy Band. They are, obviously, one of the groups that performed it.
Not sure if the tune in question was synthesized or if this was a playback of a USNB recording. Being modern, it could be that someone owns rights to the USNB's recordings. (Although I find it VERY strange that a commercial entity would hold rights to a government band.)
If it was just the melody, that predates America the Beautiful based on the sources I can find quickly. (yeah, Wikipedia...)
As I understand it, the US capacity factor has been improving over the years:
around 88% from 2006-2012, but only 70% averaged from 1970-2009 - http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-C... and http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-C... from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think he's talking about nameplate capacity vs. capacity adjusted for capacity factor.
Nameplate capacity - The power the system generates at full rated capability.
Capacity factor - Actual production divided by nameplate capacity averaged over time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nuclear stations usually have 80-90% capacity factor as do most other "baseload" plants including coal
Natural gas plants often run intentionally at lower capacity factor since they're usually built specifically for peaking. In the US, that's around 42%
PV Solar is usually only 13-20% (13-15% in MA, 19% in Arizona)
Concentrated solar power often has a lot of "inertia" in the plant along with built-in storage, so apparently CSP in California achieves a 33% capacity factor
Wind is 20-40%
Hydro varies widely since many countries intentionally overbuild nameplate capacity in order to use a hydro dam for energy storage. (I believe Norway's hydro stations operate at a pretty low capacity factor, but this is partly because Norway acts as Denmark's "battery" and is the sole reason Denmark can achieve around 20% grid penetration of wind/solar.)
So if the installations of solar nameplate capacity matched new coal nameplate capacity installations, in terms of actual contribution to the grid, solar is only contributing 20-30% of what the new coal/nuke/whatever plants are contributing. Another way of thinking about it is that you need MUCH more solar nameplate capacity along with a vast improvement in energy storage in order to match a baseload plant such as a nuclear station.
Also note that this is new installations - most gas/coal plants have already been built, and when renovated/modernized they don't count as "new".
Every time this happens, the carriers blame the OEM and the OEM blames the carriers.
But when the device is 99% identical to updated devices from the same OEM on another carrier, it becomes very clear who is at fault.
No, they're not.
THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED LOLLIPOP BINARIES FOR THE DEVICE. Which means they are under NO obligation to provided Lollipop kernel source.
They have provided KitKat kernel source for their devices. So they're fully in compliance with the GPL here.
Outdated software - which they have released source for.
Their smartphones are usually pretty well built.
The problem is that software and hardware are so tightly integrated these days that if a company can't produce reliable embedded software, all of their hardware looks like shit.
That's why I never had issues with my Nexus 4 or Nexus 5 but, as stated before, will NEVER touch any non-Nexus LG phone.
Yeah, the Nexus devices often have their own software flaws (oops, considering they're supposed to be reference devices), but nothing nearly as bad as the shitfest that is LG's own software.
Yeah. So far, fracking has been primarily used in areas that are sparsely populated and/or don't have much surface water (e.g. dry with not much rainfall).
There are lots of examples of local contamination... Drinking water supplies in Dimock, PA have basically been destroyed by fracking.
The big controversy is the Marcellus Shale in NYS - It's a massive resource pretty much located over either the Susquehanna watershed, or worse, the NYC water supply - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
NYC's water supply is the largest untreated or one of the least-treated drinking water supplies in the world, partly due to much stricter conservation easements of the water supply than in many other areas. Allowing fracking in that region could completely change the results of this report in terms of "widespread" contamination.
See, the problem is, no one has had issues with widespread systemic impacts.
They have issues with an ALARMINGLY high number of local impacts. Also, I wonder if this is just evaulating the actual fracturing process itself, or if it is including things such as companies dumping produced water 100 feet from a stream (It's happened multiple times - they're not allowed to do it, but underpaid truck drivers take shortcuts.)
Also, part of the reason we haven't had widespread impacts is because people who live in areas with large surface drinking water supplies (as opposed to primary drinking water being underground aquifers) have been fighting hard - New York City has one of the largest untreated water supplies in the world, and it is fed by a network of reservoirs and streams upstate. NYS has been good about keeping fracking AWAY from this infrastructure.
It's just a matter of time before those local impacts become systemic if fracking is allowed in more areas.
That's the disappointing thing - when a trusted name gets acquired by shady people, and those shady people milk the name for all it is worth.
I haven't been going to SF nearly as much lately, something just seemed "off" - now I'm glad I almost never go there.
It reminds me of what happened to a fairly popular hosting site for Android development projects, dev-host. d-h used to be a pretty good service, but sometime in the last year, they started replacing downloads with malware/adware.
Well, Windscale was never used for civilian power production. I think nearly all of the reactors designed for weapons production were far less safe than nearly any civilian design.
And yeah, the Magnox reactors weren't very safe either, although they're better IMO than the RBMK design.
CANDU are, to my knowledge, the only other civilian reactors in use to have a positive void coefficient, but at least in their case the moderator (heavy water) isn't flammable...
More likely it is the carriers and not LG.
This is why I refuse to buy carrier-branded phones nowadays.
I haven't heard too many issues about Sony LP... That said, right around when they deployed LP to the Z3 is when I finally unlocked the bootloader and started running Omni on it.
That said - 5.0 was in general a steaming pile of poo, which is why so many OEMs are just skipping to 5.1 now. 5.0 was such poo that Google changed the version number to get away from the stigma, in reality, 5.1 was more like a 5.0.3... But it was important in that it fixed the biggest issues with 5.0.x
You're not guaranteed regular updates with Cyngn phones either.
They burned their first hardware partner even more than they burned OnePlus with the MicroMax exclusivity mess - the Oppo N1 didn't get a KitKat update from Cyngn until November 2014.
Cyngn corporate is "just another OEM" - same BS.
Moto G is most definitely not water resistant. Any member of Sony's Xperia Z family - yes. Moto G - no.
I never had any issues with my Nexus 4 or Nexus 5. LG's hardware is pretty good, it's their software that is utterly atrocious (generally a common theme for Asian companies, partly because Asian markets seem to care more about how shiny and colorful their skin is than whether their phone is a bugridden POS running outdated software...), which is why I will never buy an LG device that is not a Nexus. (Same goes for Samsungs... I used to be a heavy Samsung user, but after the way they handled Superbrick... never again...)
If the difference is only in the radios, no need for Canadian kernel source.
Usually the international source for most devices is the least mangled.
Before anyone rants about GPL violations - they only have to release source if they released a binary. They haven't released a binary.
Except in the 80s in the Soviet union, where many of their "civilian" reactors were designed to allow for use as weapons production plants.
Such as Chernobyl... So many things went wrong there, but one of the major contributing factors was a fundamentally unsafe reactor design.
Gas is not the best option. It may burn clean, but the process of extracting it is NOT clean.
The problem is that the contamination is much more diffuse/widespread, so you can't say "OMG LOOK THREE MILE ISLAND! BAD!" - even though TMI led to less negative health effects for the environment than gas drilling in just a single town (Dimock, PA).
Solar and wind won't be able to meet our needs for another few decades as we don't have sufficient energy storage technology to make them viable yet (Tesla's making great strides here, but one has to wonder - what might the hidden environmental costs here be? For example, the permanent magnet motors used in nearly all electric and hybrid vehicles use rare earth magnets - http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...
We need one more generation of nuclear to bridge the gap, using modernized reactors with improved safety. (Ideally, research into improved reactors/fuel cycles like the IFR wouldn't have been killed 2 decades ago and they'd be ready for construction now... If I recall one calculation, the IFR could've met our energy needs for 100 years using only the stockpiles of LWR waste we had in the mid-late 1990s.)
Vitrification may be OK for the high-level short-lived (approx. 200 years to decay to safe levels) stuff that would have come out of the IFR's integrated fuel cycle, but I'm fairly certain it's not OK for long-lived transuranics...