Yellowstone has three towers in the entire park. If you're within about three miles of Old Faithful, Grant Village, or Mammoth, you've got coverage. The other 99% of the park (including most of the campgrounds and lodges) doesn't.
Last I checked, the entire North Rim of the Grand Canyon had no coverage.
Death Valley got its first cell tower last winter.
I suppose you could call these "areas without anything to attract a significant number of people". I wouldn't.
I wonder, just for the heck of it, how does the carbon footprint of an RV "liver of life on the road" stack up against your average city dweller.
It varies, but the average fulltimer's environmental footprint is comparable to a European apartment-dweller:
* They don't commute. A typical fulltimer is either retired, telecommutes, or lives on the job site (think campground employees), which eliminates a huge part of the footprint. They don't move their RV very often, either, since doing so is a full-day operation regardless of distance. * They don't use much water. The typical "weekender" RV is designed to operate off its internal 40-gallon water tank for three days, so it's got things like low-flow faucets and showerheads, variable-flush toilets, and the like. "Fulltimer" rigs have larger tanks, but see the above note about moving to see why this doesn't translate into increased water usage. * They don't use much electricity. The water heater is typically a dual-power AC/propane model and can be turned off when hot water isn't needed. The refrigerator is an absorption-cycle system with very heavy insulation (it's not safe to run the refrigerator when the RV is in motion, so it needs to be able to keep things frozen during an all-day drive in hot weather). Lighting is provided by small task lights rather than large area lights, so only the areas that need it are lit. Even little things like indicator lights are designed to minimize energy usage. * Heating and cooling needs are reduced. On a macro scale, a fulltimer can follow good weather; on a micro scale, they can position the RV to optimize the effects of shade or sun. On the other hand, if active heating or cooling is needed, it's less efficient: even the best fulltime RV has only about a third the insulation of a house, and space constraints mean the heat exchangers for the furnace and air conditioning are less efficient.
If there ever was a game that was "You will play our way or not at all" it was CoH. NCSoft did a good job of making my heroes feel less powerful with each successive patch and for me that made the game forgettable. And I only played from [release] to [release + 3 months].
That was Jack Emmert's legacy. Things changed dramatically when he left.
Convert the file to the site supported format and quality level in sandbox.
You're applying a known transform to the image. By reversing the transform, the attacker can craft an image such that the original upload is innocent, while the reprocessed image is malicious. I've seen it done where the upload is clean, but the generated thumbnail is goatse; it shouldn't be too hard to create a clean upload that the converter turns into something IE will interpret as Javascript.
Apparently. So now images are Turing-complete, and all your cookies can be lifted by someone who puts <script src="http://private.com/users/you/profile.jpg"></script> in a page you visit.
It's worse than that. If you're using Internet Explorer, your cookies can be lifted by someone who puts <img src="http://private.com/users/you/profile.jpg"> in a page you visit, or your flash storage tampered by <a href="http://private.com/uploads/schedule.txt">.
The point of the article is that they can't. Internet Explorer can be coerced into interpreting JPEG images as HTML, interpreting ASCII text as Flash, and interpreting text/plain documents as text/html, among other things. You can also play games with the encoding-recognition code by tweaking the first few bytes of the file, such that a document uploaded as ISO-8859-1 is interpreted by IE as UTF-7, or whatever other encoding suits your purposes. Note that in all of these attacks, the file is entirely valid in its original format, so there is nothing the server can do to prevent them.
I'm not afraid someone will do it better. I'm afraid that some organization will take what I've given away, copy it, make a token modification, and copyright it, thus turning the work that I made as a gift into something that has a price on it, all without paying me a dime. They might even be able to turn around and issue DMCA takedowns and sue people for performing my work, claiming that they're really performing their version rather than my version. They've now taken free artistic work and made it no longer free. In other words, they aren't really adding any value at all, just taking value from me and from the public and declaring it theirs.
Do you know what the "SA" in "CC-BY-SA" means? It means "sharealike": any derivative work must be licensed under the same terms as the original. Since your scenario already has a company willing to violate the "sharealike" clause of a free license, what makes you think that they'll respect the "noncommercial" clause of your license?
You're right that nothing does, and releasing the book under ND-like conditions without the Creative Commons name benefits you in that people won't confuse your license for another license such as CC-BY.
(Such confusion is very, very common. About a quarter of the time when someone uploads a third party's CC image to Wikipedia, they get the license wrong.)
In terms of the commercial example, I think we can all judge when things move over the line from donation based to blatantly commercial.
We can, but we don't all judge the same. Some people would consider Wikipedia's annual fundraiser to be commercial use; others would only say using the image in the fundraising banner was. The German Wikipedia has at times sold articles on DVD: a non-profit fundraising effort for them, but the company that presses the DVDs makes a profit -- does that count as commercial use?
The good news is that it is up to me as a rights holder to enforce the license. I can allow uses of my file in ad supported web sites, but object to my song being used in a local TV ad. Yes, there are ambiguities in everything.
Yes, there are ambiguities, and those ambiguities make works under the "no commercial use" licenses highly unattractive to potential re-users. Additionally, putting the ambiguous CC-NC and the highly restrictive CC-ND licenses under the same umbrella as the highly permissive CC-BY and the copyleft CC-BY-SA causes problems for all of them, as people have trouble telling the licenses apart. I don't know how many times I've had to deal with someone saying "But it's a Creative Commons license!" while trying to upload a CC-BY-NC-ND image to Wikipedia, or ask if an article counts as a derivative work with respect to a CC-BY one -- their view of Creative Commons is that of whichever CC license they first encountered, and it usually takes an extended conversation to convince them that not all Creative Commons licenses are created equal.
You've got some major misconceptions about how copyright and the Creative Commons licenses work.
1. I write an opinion piece for my local paper on why G.W. Bush was the worst US president in history. Under any free license, someone else can write a revised version in which my opinions are all changed, then distribute it with attribution to me and the reviser. Fair use doesn't allow this. An ND license does what I want, which is to prevent this misrepresentation of my opinions.
True, a free license doesn't prevent this. But you are still protected by defamation laws, and in some countries, by moral-rights laws. If someone's misrepresenting your opinions, you don't sue them for copyright infringement, you sue them for slander.
2. Alice Randall wrote a book called The Wind Done Gone using the setting and characters of Gone With the Wind. Margaret Mitchell's estate sued Randall and won. If Gone With the Wind had been distributed under an ND license, this would have been prevented. Under a free license, it would have been allowed. Fair use doesn't allow this use.
Gone with the Wind was released under simple copyright. The Wind Done Gone was written and defended under the fair-use provisions of copyright law. No court ever ruled about that (the suit was settled out of court), so its legal status under fair-use law is unknown.
If Gone with the Wind had been licensed under a Creative Commons No-Derivatives license, things would have played out exactly the same. A copyright license does not and cannot overrule copyright law, and fair use permits you to make certain types of derivatives even of a work whose license prohibits derivatives.
Add difficulty to tire changes and chaining up in the winter.
Make grill openings smaller.
Make cooling less effective, which reduces engine efficiency.
Use carbon fiber, it's lighter, cheaper, and stronger than aluminum.
And harder to repair. Steel can be fixed with a welding torch and a grinder. Aluminum requires special welding techniques. Patching carbon fiber is a pain, and is nowhere near as strong as the original part.
Another area ripe for improvement is the torque converter on the classic automatic transmission we've been living with for decades. Those torque converters impose a 20% hit to fuel economy!
Everyone uses locking torque converters these days, and designs have improved to take less than a 5% hit to efficiency compared to manual. Once the reliability problems are solved, they'll be switching to CVTs, which beat manuals by always hitting exactly the right gear ratio for conditions, where a discrete gearbox can only manage a series of near-misses.
Please, if you're going to complain about car designs, look at what the manufacturers are actually doing, not at what you think they're doing.
You know who dies of whooping cough? Mostly, it's infants who are too young to be vaccinated. By the time you're old enough for the vaccine, your lungs are developed enough that whooping cough probably won't kill you.
When you see this crap, do your civic duty and report it.
Why bother? These guys are usually working from countries where the FBI can't touch them. I prefer to play along, doing my best "cheerfully clueless tech-support caller" impersonation. I got the best results by using Win98 and a 101-key keyboard: it took them half an hour to figure out why their directions weren't working, which I'm sure did more damage to their bottom line than any number of complaints to the feds.
The composting toilets I'm familiar with stink to high heaven unless they're installed, maintained, and used properly. If Gates can come up with one that can be installed by the lowest bidder, survive twenty years' use by someone who treats it as a simple pit toilet, and keeps working even when household waste is dumped in, without increasing the disease risk or smelling like an open sewer, it's worth doing.
Basically, like cars travel on roads that are directional lines with assigned speeds, flying cars travel on roads that are directional layers with assigned altitudes and speeds.
Apart from the speed restrictions, you've discovered how controlled airspace works. Your desired direction of travel determines which thousand-foot (or 500-foot) layers you're permitted to travel in.
Transponders transmit vin, altitude, airspeed, position, and heading to traffic around it to allow them to make adjustments to avoid collisions
All of this really only works well in controlled airspace, where you can expect that everyone else has roughly the same equipment and is following the same rules. It's not too effective in uncontrolled airspace, where you might be seeing balloons, ultralights, tourist flights, police/traffic/medivac helicopters, and any number of other vehicles that cannot or will not follow your rules.
I would say keep it safe: plain XX is women, everything else is men/open.
That's got its own problems. Consider 46, XX/XY mosaicism: which division the person is eligible to compete in depends on where you get your chromosome sample from. Or what about trisomy X? Is an extra inch or two of height really such a big advantage that they need to compete in the open division? XX male syndrome is extremely rare, but if someone happens to wind up with both that and the typical genetic advantages of an elite athlete, it could add up to an unfair advantage in the womens' division.
Testosterone levels may form a continuum, but they have two advantages: 1) the vast majority of people (including elite athletes) have levels that fall into either the "male" bucket or the "female" bucket, and 2) testosterone levels have a better correlation with athletic performance than "XX/not XX".
Is it? A couple weeks back I read an RAIB incident report (in a discussion of why trains take so long to stop, a mention was made of a train that overran its intended stopping point by two and a half miles, and I was curious about the details), and I noted that they used the following units:
Track positions were measured in miles/chains, long distances were measured in decimal miles, and short distances were measured in meters. Speeds were measured in miles per hour. Flow rates were measured in kilograms per minute. Accelerations were measured in %g. Short times were measured in seconds, while long times were measured in fractional hours. Pressures were measured in bar.
There is another approach - the "we just don't know" crowd. Well, sorry, but that is not how science works, if you want to overturn the existing model then you have to propose a model that better explains the observed data.
You don't need a better model to overturn the existing model, you just need to show that the existing model is making incorrect predictions. If, for example, the existing model predicts increased tropical evaporation leading to increased polar snowfall and ice cap growth, you can overturn the model simply by showing that the polar ice caps are shrinking.
If you can read the sensor's output, and inject your own input, you can defeat any system. A keyboard is a sensor too, and just as vulnerable to what you've described.
Biometrics are more vulnerable to this than passwords are, in two ways:
1) You can enter a password into a remote terminal and have it be verified against a central database without ever transmitting the password in either direction (see challenge-based authentication protocols). You can't do this with biometrics: verification consists of comparing the measure against the database entry and determining that the two match to within the desired degree of precision, and this requires transmitting the measured values to the database.
2) The average user does not leave their password on every surface they touch. In order to inject a password into a compromised reader, the attacker needs to record it from a compromised reader. Biometrics can be obtained through any number of methods that don't involve a compromised reader.
IF I had a small child that got fried there would be all hell to pay. I know the article mentions fried eggs and fried cats but still.
The article mentions fried eggs because this operates on the same principle as an induction cooktop: stick a pan of eggs on the charger, and the resulting eddy currents will heat the pan.
A 20-kilowatt charging pad is likely to waste about 3kW in heating various things (mostly the receiving pad and the charging pad; to a lesser extent, the frame of the car). I suspect the fried cats come from this waste heat: since both pads are in an enclosed space (the underside of the car), any small animals may not be able to escape before getting badly burned. As long as your child doesn't have a habit of crawling under the car, they're safe.
What are the effects of all of that energy floating around?
"All that energy" is in the form of a time-varying magnetic field. The effects are well-known: electrical currents (eddy currents) are induced in nearby conductive objects. The bulk of the current (probably around 85%) is generated in the receiving pad and gets siphoned off to charge the car's battery; the rest goes to heating up other objects. Since magnetic fields fall off as the third power of distance, the only "other object" that's likely to see much temperature rise is the lower frame of the car, and the only testing that's needed is to make sure the heating is uniform rather than generating hot spots.
Besides if the goal with electric cars is to be green, why waste so much power on transferring it wirelessly?
The article brings up two good points: 1) Unlike a cable, the wireless transfer system is nearly vandalism-proof. Install the transmitter pad under an inch of pavement and vandals will need a backhoe to damage it. 2) The wires in the system are entirely sealed. You can use this to charge even in pouring rain without risking electrocution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yellowstone has three towers in the entire park. If you're within about three miles of Old Faithful, Grant Village, or Mammoth, you've got coverage. The other 99% of the park (including most of the campgrounds and lodges) doesn't.
Last I checked, the entire North Rim of the Grand Canyon had no coverage.
Death Valley got its first cell tower last winter.
I suppose you could call these "areas without anything to attract a significant number of people". I wouldn't.
It varies, but the average fulltimer's environmental footprint is comparable to a European apartment-dweller:
* They don't commute. A typical fulltimer is either retired, telecommutes, or lives on the job site (think campground employees), which eliminates a huge part of the footprint. They don't move their RV very often, either, since doing so is a full-day operation regardless of distance.
* They don't use much water. The typical "weekender" RV is designed to operate off its internal 40-gallon water tank for three days, so it's got things like low-flow faucets and showerheads, variable-flush toilets, and the like. "Fulltimer" rigs have larger tanks, but see the above note about moving to see why this doesn't translate into increased water usage.
* They don't use much electricity. The water heater is typically a dual-power AC/propane model and can be turned off when hot water isn't needed. The refrigerator is an absorption-cycle system with very heavy insulation (it's not safe to run the refrigerator when the RV is in motion, so it needs to be able to keep things frozen during an all-day drive in hot weather). Lighting is provided by small task lights rather than large area lights, so only the areas that need it are lit. Even little things like indicator lights are designed to minimize energy usage.
* Heating and cooling needs are reduced. On a macro scale, a fulltimer can follow good weather; on a micro scale, they can position the RV to optimize the effects of shade or sun. On the other hand, if active heating or cooling is needed, it's less efficient: even the best fulltime RV has only about a third the insulation of a house, and space constraints mean the heat exchangers for the furnace and air conditioning are less efficient.
That was Jack Emmert's legacy. Things changed dramatically when he left.
They can't. The engine is owned by Cryptic, not by Paragon, and parts of it (such as the physics engine) are licensed from yet other parties.
You're applying a known transform to the image. By reversing the transform, the attacker can craft an image such that the original upload is innocent, while the reprocessed image is malicious. I've seen it done where the upload is clean, but the generated thumbnail is goatse; it shouldn't be too hard to create a clean upload that the converter turns into something IE will interpret as Javascript.
It's worse than that. If you're using Internet Explorer, your cookies can be lifted by someone who puts <img src="http://private.com/users/you/profile.jpg"> in a page you visit, or your flash storage tampered by <a href="http://private.com/uploads/schedule.txt">.
The point of the article is that they can't. Internet Explorer can be coerced into interpreting JPEG images as HTML, interpreting ASCII text as Flash, and interpreting text/plain documents as text/html, among other things. You can also play games with the encoding-recognition code by tweaking the first few bytes of the file, such that a document uploaded as ISO-8859-1 is interpreted by IE as UTF-7, or whatever other encoding suits your purposes. Note that in all of these attacks, the file is entirely valid in its original format, so there is nothing the server can do to prevent them.
Do you know what the "SA" in "CC-BY-SA" means? It means "sharealike": any derivative work must be licensed under the same terms as the original. Since your scenario already has a company willing to violate the "sharealike" clause of a free license, what makes you think that they'll respect the "noncommercial" clause of your license?
You're right that nothing does, and releasing the book under ND-like conditions without the Creative Commons name benefits you in that people won't confuse your license for another license such as CC-BY.
(Such confusion is very, very common. About a quarter of the time when someone uploads a third party's CC image to Wikipedia, they get the license wrong.)
We can, but we don't all judge the same. Some people would consider Wikipedia's annual fundraiser to be commercial use; others would only say using the image in the fundraising banner was. The German Wikipedia has at times sold articles on DVD: a non-profit fundraising effort for them, but the company that presses the DVDs makes a profit -- does that count as commercial use?
Yes, there are ambiguities, and those ambiguities make works under the "no commercial use" licenses highly unattractive to potential re-users. Additionally, putting the ambiguous CC-NC and the highly restrictive CC-ND licenses under the same umbrella as the highly permissive CC-BY and the copyleft CC-BY-SA causes problems for all of them, as people have trouble telling the licenses apart. I don't know how many times I've had to deal with someone saying "But it's a Creative Commons license!" while trying to upload a CC-BY-NC-ND image to Wikipedia, or ask if an article counts as a derivative work with respect to a CC-BY one -- their view of Creative Commons is that of whichever CC license they first encountered, and it usually takes an extended conversation to convince them that not all Creative Commons licenses are created equal.
You've got some major misconceptions about how copyright and the Creative Commons licenses work.
True, a free license doesn't prevent this. But you are still protected by defamation laws, and in some countries, by moral-rights laws. If someone's misrepresenting your opinions, you don't sue them for copyright infringement, you sue them for slander.
Gone with the Wind was released under simple copyright. The Wind Done Gone was written and defended under the fair-use provisions of copyright law. No court ever ruled about that (the suit was settled out of court), so its legal status under fair-use law is unknown.
If Gone with the Wind had been licensed under a Creative Commons No-Derivatives license, things would have played out exactly the same. A copyright license does not and cannot overrule copyright law, and fair use permits you to make certain types of derivatives even of a work whose license prohibits derivatives.
Add difficulty to tire changes and chaining up in the winter.
Make cooling less effective, which reduces engine efficiency.
And harder to repair. Steel can be fixed with a welding torch and a grinder. Aluminum requires special welding techniques. Patching carbon fiber is a pain, and is nowhere near as strong as the original part.
Everyone uses locking torque converters these days, and designs have improved to take less than a 5% hit to efficiency compared to manual. Once the reliability problems are solved, they'll be switching to CVTs, which beat manuals by always hitting exactly the right gear ratio for conditions, where a discrete gearbox can only manage a series of near-misses.
Please, if you're going to complain about car designs, look at what the manufacturers are actually doing, not at what you think they're doing.
You know who dies of whooping cough? Mostly, it's infants who are too young to be vaccinated. By the time you're old enough for the vaccine, your lungs are developed enough that whooping cough probably won't kill you.
Why bother? These guys are usually working from countries where the FBI can't touch them. I prefer to play along, doing my best "cheerfully clueless tech-support caller" impersonation. I got the best results by using Win98 and a 101-key keyboard: it took them half an hour to figure out why their directions weren't working, which I'm sure did more damage to their bottom line than any number of complaints to the feds.
The composting toilets I'm familiar with stink to high heaven unless they're installed, maintained, and used properly. If Gates can come up with one that can be installed by the lowest bidder, survive twenty years' use by someone who treats it as a simple pit toilet, and keeps working even when household waste is dumped in, without increasing the disease risk or smelling like an open sewer, it's worth doing.
Apart from the speed restrictions, you've discovered how controlled airspace works. Your desired direction of travel determines which thousand-foot (or 500-foot) layers you're permitted to travel in.
You've re-invented TCAS.
All of this really only works well in controlled airspace, where you can expect that everyone else has roughly the same equipment and is following the same rules. It's not too effective in uncontrolled airspace, where you might be seeing balloons, ultralights, tourist flights, police/traffic/medivac helicopters, and any number of other vehicles that cannot or will not follow your rules.
A true allergy is an immune-system reaction, where a pseudo-allergy doesn't involve the immune system.
That's got its own problems. Consider 46, XX/XY mosaicism: which division the person is eligible to compete in depends on where you get your chromosome sample from. Or what about trisomy X? Is an extra inch or two of height really such a big advantage that they need to compete in the open division? XX male syndrome is extremely rare, but if someone happens to wind up with both that and the typical genetic advantages of an elite athlete, it could add up to an unfair advantage in the womens' division.
Testosterone levels may form a continuum, but they have two advantages: 1) the vast majority of people (including elite athletes) have levels that fall into either the "male" bucket or the "female" bucket, and 2) testosterone levels have a better correlation with athletic performance than "XX/not XX".
Is it? A couple weeks back I read an RAIB incident report (in a discussion of why trains take so long to stop, a mention was made of a train that overran its intended stopping point by two and a half miles, and I was curious about the details), and I noted that they used the following units:
Track positions were measured in miles/chains, long distances were measured in decimal miles, and short distances were measured in meters.
Speeds were measured in miles per hour.
Flow rates were measured in kilograms per minute.
Accelerations were measured in %g.
Short times were measured in seconds, while long times were measured in fractional hours.
Pressures were measured in bar.
Actual work is done in metric, you say?
You don't need a better model to overturn the existing model, you just need to show that the existing model is making incorrect predictions. If, for example, the existing model predicts increased tropical evaporation leading to increased polar snowfall and ice cap growth, you can overturn the model simply by showing that the polar ice caps are shrinking.
Easy: they're the ones who swear the most in team chat.
Biometrics are more vulnerable to this than passwords are, in two ways:
1) You can enter a password into a remote terminal and have it be verified against a central database without ever transmitting the password in either direction (see challenge-based authentication protocols). You can't do this with biometrics: verification consists of comparing the measure against the database entry and determining that the two match to within the desired degree of precision, and this requires transmitting the measured values to the database.
2) The average user does not leave their password on every surface they touch. In order to inject a password into a compromised reader, the attacker needs to record it from a compromised reader. Biometrics can be obtained through any number of methods that don't involve a compromised reader.
The article mentions fried eggs because this operates on the same principle as an induction cooktop: stick a pan of eggs on the charger, and the resulting eddy currents will heat the pan.
A 20-kilowatt charging pad is likely to waste about 3kW in heating various things (mostly the receiving pad and the charging pad; to a lesser extent, the frame of the car). I suspect the fried cats come from this waste heat: since both pads are in an enclosed space (the underside of the car), any small animals may not be able to escape before getting badly burned. As long as your child doesn't have a habit of crawling under the car, they're safe.
"All that energy" is in the form of a time-varying magnetic field. The effects are well-known: electrical currents (eddy currents) are induced in nearby conductive objects. The bulk of the current (probably around 85%) is generated in the receiving pad and gets siphoned off to charge the car's battery; the rest goes to heating up other objects. Since magnetic fields fall off as the third power of distance, the only "other object" that's likely to see much temperature rise is the lower frame of the car, and the only testing that's needed is to make sure the heating is uniform rather than generating hot spots.
The article brings up two good points:
1) Unlike a cable, the wireless transfer system is nearly vandalism-proof. Install the transmitter pad under an inch of pavement and vandals will need a backhoe to damage it.
2) The wires in the system are entirely sealed. You can use this to charge even in pouring rain without risking electrocution.