Except, given the *current stock* of nuclear fuels, we have enough to power the world for at least the next couple thousand years. That's not to say we currently have the reactors to burn that fuel; nonetheless the fuel supply is plentiful.
Its one thing to say "peak uranium", its quite another thing to say, "peak nuclear fuel". The first may or may not be true. Many suspect its not. The later is most definitely is not true.
The Phalanx gun which this the laser purports to replace, on the other hand, shoots 20mm rounds - these could weigh 100g each, for a muzzle energy of 30.25kJ, comparable to the one-second pulse. Of course, the Phalanx shoots 50-75 rounds a second, for a total muzzle energy/second of firing of a whopping 2269kJ.
While the math is seemingly correct, its based on a misconception. Phalanx have a high rate of fire because they are expected to miss far more than they hit. This is why the land variant C-RAM uses high explosive rounds.
If you've ever seen some of the videos of these things in action, they do work but uncomfortably so. As someone else pointed out, its not uncommon for the defending ship to be sprayed with mach 2+ fiery debris. Given the typical anti-ship missile profile, a laser adds the potential to both blind and detonate the warhead father away. As they are intended to be used in conjunction with Phalanx, which do sometimes miss or fail to stop a missile, its also adds an extra layer of protection. A multi-layer screen is almost always superior to a single layer.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
we,the democratic public, are not willing to compromise our rights for safety.
Not according to polls.
Frankly, this is exactly why only land owners were given the privilege of voting. Back then, land owners were predominantly educated people who frequently had a vested interest in their community and/or state. These days the mass of uneducated and disinterest are commonly used as sock puppets (e.g. fox viewers; ya, likely a large intersection with the first group) to maintain control away from those who can effectively make an educated decision.
The bottom line is, "we the people", are still ultimately responsive for this mess.
Many things work on a basis of scale. In theory, once you've reached a certain level of income, the cost of software versus income becomes so proportionally small, its no longer a critical cost on the bottom line. Therefore, the logical conclusion is, small companies are forced to steal to be competitive with other companies who are more than willing to steal. And only after the company reaches a critical level of income can they consider becoming legitimate.
Which likely means, the companies which supply the software are far more likely to either see considerably smaller growth, which harms the overall economy, or will go bankrupt waiting for these pirate companies to reach the point where they can cost effectively purchase the software.
In a nut shell, the conclusion is, stealing hurts the economy. Piracy is bad for everyone who is interested in participating in the economy.
they are trying to make up quality with quantity. And they are arming like mad, because they are way behind in the race.
Except Western forces are basically designed to counter quantity. Despite Russia's superior technology to China, when contrasting western nations, the west has always had superior technology.
China has a massive army but its best and more accurate to say, "army". Realistically, their army includes huge numbers of women and children. That's not to criticism women. Its just that, if you called your mom recently, from a Chinese perspective, you just talked to a member of the army. And the various factories you drove by going to work - are full of members of the army. In fact, its not uncommon for factory workers to be required to wear their uniforms. Many, many goods which are stamped, "made in china", are actually made by the Chinese military to pay basic expenses.
In other words, a massive chunk of their 200 million man army, is in fact complete bullshit. Besides, consider the logistics for a minute or two. You can't effectively mobilize that many people, let alone feed them. Hell, you can't effectively mobilize a fraction of that many people, let alone feed them. Even the US wouldn't be able to do that, or would have extremely difficulty with endless screw ups. Realistically, of their 200 million man army, roughly 198.2 million are people dressed in costumes. Of what's left is basically a million extremely poorly trained reserve. That effectively leaves something like 800,000 troops which can effectively fight with antiquated weapons. Of those, the vast majority are poorly equipped; as in 1950s to 1960s technology. So basically, their huge army only matters if someone were to attempt a land invasion of China. I don't know of any nation who desires to do so; even ignoring the "army".
To put this into perspective, when the US invaded Iraq, Iraq had ~300,000 well armed men. Of that, maybe 100,000 was forced enlisted. Meaning, roughly 2000,000 well trained and well equipped soldiers. During the "shock and awe" portion of the war, GPS jammers and thick black smoke use (smoke prevents laser tracking) was common so as to prevent strikes. Their effectiveness, at best, wasn't. All it did was inflict additional collateral damage and the targets were still hit.
And they are arming like mad, because they are way behind in the race.
How much arming do you think they can do. Do you think there is a big difference between 300,000 and 800,000? In comparison, the Chinese are drastically less prepared. So lets say they become well equipped. The Chinese are still based on central authorities which means, you cut off communication and the part you cut off is almost completely useless.
Long story short, China doesn't have the capability to equip their forces to actually pose a proper threat to the western nations, let alone to the US. And its extremely unlikely to change any time soon. Not to mention, China's economic health is entirely tied to the west. If that goes away, they are in a world of shit, even more so than the west.
The chances of China preparing for a "hot war", as others have offered, isn't good at all.
Can you point me at some pictures? Every android prototype I've seen looked like an iPhone rival (mytouch 3g basically). Considering Android, from the get go, has been looking to directly compete with Apple, frankly, I'm not sure that prototypes really have anything to do with anything.
You need to keep in mind, especially during early development, its not uncommon to develop on easily obtainable, low cost hardware simply because actual production units are not available, available in low yields, or too cost prohibitive to make widely available to developers right out the gate. In other words, its not uncommon or even unreasonable for development prototypes to have absolutely no form factor in common with production hardware. In fact, they are often even missing core hardware - GPS or phone/dsp chips. None of that means it has any influence on its true market goals or direction.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Terror attacks will come again from other sources. It doesn't matter how much money you spend. Maybe if you spend enough to create the situation that existed in former East Germany. But do anybody really want to go there?
That's exactly right. No one is safe in a free society. Which is exactly why Franklin wrote one of his more memorable quotes, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Trading safety for liberty and freedom is an essential price to be paid. Our forefathers knew it - and paid for it. Now we're willing to trade it all in for the mere illusion of safety. Its sad times to be an American.
No...we...haven't. They require lots more research. I strongly urge you to look more into it. What appears to be possible with solar, versus what we've already done and/or accomplished, appears to only be the tip of the iceberg.
How much of your power comes from solar. Exactly. More research is required.
If that's the case then this isn't a router vulnerability, it's a browser/OS vulnerability. What am I missing here?
Its a browser vulnerability which leverages a compromised router. Nothing about it allows you to compromise a browser or router without first having full access to the router in the first place. Which basically already means you can do anything you which with any number of dozens of other vulnerabilities. So to summarize, if your router has been compromised, via some completely unrelated vulnerability, prepare to be compromised! Well, no shit!
Since the weapon is non-lethal, your example completely validates my original reply to you. In other words, both you and the moderator (assuming its likely also you or a friend) are all completely fucking idiots because one, you can't comprehend what you've read, and two, are so fucking stupid you seemingly believe your reply, which is completely unrelatable, has some profound meaning.
So please, if you're not the complete fucking idiot you clearly force everyone to see, please clarify as to how an idiotic post, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything in context, justifies anything other than you being moderated an idiot (troll), with responses in kind.
I want to stress the "It pulls sharply to one side, forcing the pilot to compensate with very heavy rudder action.", part of what you said. Most engines failures occur during take off and landing, which is in it self, the most dangerous profile of every flight; if for no other reason then relative altitude to the ground.
When a single engine fails during these profiles, the period in which the pilot has to not only react but to react properly is exceedingly small - even for SE planes. This added to the fact that the engine is typically producing its highest torque which creates its largest force on the plane, without one to counteract and while close to the ground means your sphincter is likely very unhappy during these events.
Add to the fact that more engines typically mean larger carrying capacity which usually translates into larger passenger loads means when the pilot screws up, they are far more likely to kill additional people; and more of them.
How can it protect your eyes, unless you wrap your head with the treated cloth?
The EM radiation is generated in pulses. The human body involuntarily reacts to the sensation generated by this device. This means unless you have an abnormal nervous system, your eyelids will automatically close and shield your eyes from any damage. At which point, if you're too dumb to either leave the area, take cover, or not keep your eyes closed while looking directly at the weapon, then you've managed to causes harm to yourself in spite of the fact your body has done everything possible to prevent it.
People tend to look at broad statistics and believe that's them. Realistically, there are many things that good pilots do to considerably improve their safety statistics. Because of the differences in equipment and a single engine, its simply not reasonable to believe a SE plane can ever be as statistically safe as a commercial, multi-engine plane. But, it is reasonable and very likely for good pilots in well maintained aircraft to fly statistically safer than those driving in vehicles on the ground.
Contrary to popular belief, flying in a small plane is not a death sentence.
Most of the things that kill people in small planes are really, really, stupid behaviors which, for whatever reason, some pilots decide doesn't apply to them. For whatever reason, some pilots really do believe they are immune to the reality of physics and can't run out of gas...or believe their wings can stay on inside a hurricane...or believe they can recovery from a spin despite the manufacturer clearly stating it can't be done safely and reproducibly...so on and so on. Idiots like these lowest the safety statistics. But if you're not with a pilot who does dumb stuff like that, in a well maintained plane, your odds of remaining safe are dramatically improved.
Another killer are twin engine pilots who believe they are inherently safer because they have a second engine. Statistically these guys kill far more people than SE planes. Statistically, if a twin engine pilot has fewer than 100 hours annually, they are more dangerous than low proficiency, low hour SE pilots. The reality is, single engine failure in a piston twin is a bitch for most experienced pilots. For those less experienced and proficient, its usually lethal. So don't even let a twin pilot tell you they are inherently safe because they are full of shit if they do. In fact, that's likely reason to be very wary.
And contrary to popular belief, flying can be fairly affordable. The average non-commercial, private pilot makes less than $40K a year. The average plane owner makes less than $80K a year. And even with a headwind, a typical small, SE plane is still faster than ground transportation - and a hell of a lot more fun!
The idea is that harvesting energy has to be practical
This is research, which is clearly noted in the article and I even made purpose to specifically mention it. As such, pretty much everything in your post is off topic.
As for solar and whatever, you're ignoring the fact that by in large, they are themselves not currently practical. And, they have been barely explored compared to their hypothetical limits.
So once again, I must refer you back to the validity of the op's comment. Its a perfectly valid question as it pertains to research. With so many other viable sources of energy which potentially will scale dramatically better (or hell, just scale) in dire need of research, the op's comment is excruciatingly valid.
Its actually not. If you already have access to the router, which absolutely is required, you can already do pretty much anything you want. For example, you could redirect all DNS requests to the "hacker's" DNS server and achieve exactly the same result. Or hell, you could install your own custom router firmware which forwards all LAN side http and ssh requests (transparent proxy) to the "hacker's" own proxies.
Basically, by the time this hack ever becomes relevant, you've likely already been seriously compromised. Basically, for this hack to ever become relevant means the "hacker" (*cough* script kiddie) is an absolute idiot because he's ignored the most obvious, easiest, and potentially the most harmful paths, all while requiring more work AND yet another component (a browser) to effectively use.
Its like bragging you can get into cars without keys. Come to find out, its because those cars haven't been locked. And then yet bragging more you can expertly jack cars, only to find out the key was left in the ignition. Basically, its only a cool hack if you're already an idiot; because you can't see what's obvious to any real hacker with skills. In other words, for this hack to be noteworthy means everyone who has ever seen a car is now an expert car thief. And that just ain't so.
You've never heard of solar, vast quantities of hydrogen, or even H3? Not to mention the polithera of different radiation everything is bathed in?
I don't know if you're being snarkey or just can't see the forest for the trees. The reality is, we are completely surrounded by bountiful energy sources just waiting to be tapped. Given that this is about research, it is a legitimate question to ask why we are working so hard to research one of the least abundant and low quantity, sources of energy when so many others with potential exist.
To be clear, I'm not saying the research is without merit. Nonetheless, the op's question is legitimate.
And yet to be topical, the article is complete bullshit.
In order to be compromised, you must first be compromised! Well, no shit! The author then goes on to explain that this is easy because most people don't change their router's password.
So to summarize the story, if your system is easily compromised, expect to be further compromised. If your system is not compromised, then nothing has changed. In other words, people who don't lock their door in high crime areas experience higher rates of property theft. News at 11.
I personally don't find this interesting, let alone news worthy.
No. Actually my comment is spot on. Read the entire thread. The difference is, new product categories just don't appear like they used to. Just the same, advertising as I depict is very much alive and well. Just look at medical and medication commercials; not to mention the now common infomercial.
Additionally, my wording is very clearly vague and in most generalized terms. I'm not teaching marketing 101 here. As such, its hardly a definitive definition of marketing. The fact that my wording makes it very clear there is both other forms of marketing and specialized forms of marketing, leaves one scratching their head as to why you even replied.
The type of marketing you are referring to are for products which are ubiquitous; whereby the intent is not to educate but to establish branding, maintain branding, or to simply remind the public their product is still around. As an example, most soda commercials fall into this category.
How about you just sell the product and let the market sort it out?
Sounds like you need to re-read the thread above. What product? What market? Exactly. Those simply don't exist without marketing. Word of mouth is a form of marketing.
Basically what you're saying is, you've never bought anything and don't know anything about any product. All you know about is a hypothetical product called a "widget", and you have no idea where these things called, computers, originate.
That's because how many new product concepts are introduced on a daily basis. Ignoring your deter, my origin comment, to which you needlessly took issue, was entirely spot on to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, given the *current stock* of nuclear fuels, we have enough to power the world for at least the next couple thousand years. That's not to say we currently have the reactors to burn that fuel; nonetheless the fuel supply is plentiful.
Its one thing to say "peak uranium", its quite another thing to say, "peak nuclear fuel". The first may or may not be true. Many suspect its not. The later is most definitely is not true.
The Phalanx gun which this the laser purports to replace, on the other hand, shoots 20mm rounds - these could weigh 100g each, for a muzzle energy of 30.25kJ, comparable to the one-second pulse. Of course, the Phalanx shoots 50-75 rounds a second, for a total muzzle energy/second of firing of a whopping 2269kJ.
While the math is seemingly correct, its based on a misconception. Phalanx have a high rate of fire because they are expected to miss far more than they hit. This is why the land variant C-RAM uses high explosive rounds.
If you've ever seen some of the videos of these things in action, they do work but uncomfortably so. As someone else pointed out, its not uncommon for the defending ship to be sprayed with mach 2+ fiery debris. Given the typical anti-ship missile profile, a laser adds the potential to both blind and detonate the warhead father away. As they are intended to be used in conjunction with Phalanx, which do sometimes miss or fail to stop a missile, its also adds an extra layer of protection. A multi-layer screen is almost always superior to a single layer.
we,the democratic public, are not willing to compromise our rights for safety.
Not according to polls.
Frankly, this is exactly why only land owners were given the privilege of voting. Back then, land owners were predominantly educated people who frequently had a vested interest in their community and/or state. These days the mass of uneducated and disinterest are commonly used as sock puppets (e.g. fox viewers; ya, likely a large intersection with the first group) to maintain control away from those who can effectively make an educated decision.
The bottom line is, "we the people", are still ultimately responsive for this mess.
No. That's not the logical conclusion at all.
Many things work on a basis of scale. In theory, once you've reached a certain level of income, the cost of software versus income becomes so proportionally small, its no longer a critical cost on the bottom line. Therefore, the logical conclusion is, small companies are forced to steal to be competitive with other companies who are more than willing to steal. And only after the company reaches a critical level of income can they consider becoming legitimate.
Which likely means, the companies which supply the software are far more likely to either see considerably smaller growth, which harms the overall economy, or will go bankrupt waiting for these pirate companies to reach the point where they can cost effectively purchase the software.
In a nut shell, the conclusion is, stealing hurts the economy. Piracy is bad for everyone who is interested in participating in the economy.
they are trying to make up quality with quantity. And they are arming like mad, because they are way behind in the race.
Except Western forces are basically designed to counter quantity. Despite Russia's superior technology to China, when contrasting western nations, the west has always had superior technology.
China has a massive army but its best and more accurate to say, "army". Realistically, their army includes huge numbers of women and children. That's not to criticism women. Its just that, if you called your mom recently, from a Chinese perspective, you just talked to a member of the army. And the various factories you drove by going to work - are full of members of the army. In fact, its not uncommon for factory workers to be required to wear their uniforms. Many, many goods which are stamped, "made in china", are actually made by the Chinese military to pay basic expenses.
In other words, a massive chunk of their 200 million man army, is in fact complete bullshit. Besides, consider the logistics for a minute or two. You can't effectively mobilize that many people, let alone feed them. Hell, you can't effectively mobilize a fraction of that many people, let alone feed them. Even the US wouldn't be able to do that, or would have extremely difficulty with endless screw ups. Realistically, of their 200 million man army, roughly 198.2 million are people dressed in costumes. Of what's left is basically a million extremely poorly trained reserve. That effectively leaves something like 800,000 troops which can effectively fight with antiquated weapons. Of those, the vast majority are poorly equipped; as in 1950s to 1960s technology. So basically, their huge army only matters if someone were to attempt a land invasion of China. I don't know of any nation who desires to do so; even ignoring the "army".
To put this into perspective, when the US invaded Iraq, Iraq had ~300,000 well armed men. Of that, maybe 100,000 was forced enlisted. Meaning, roughly 2000,000 well trained and well equipped soldiers. During the "shock and awe" portion of the war, GPS jammers and thick black smoke use (smoke prevents laser tracking) was common so as to prevent strikes. Their effectiveness, at best, wasn't. All it did was inflict additional collateral damage and the targets were still hit.
And they are arming like mad, because they are way behind in the race.
How much arming do you think they can do. Do you think there is a big difference between 300,000 and 800,000? In comparison, the Chinese are drastically less prepared. So lets say they become well equipped. The Chinese are still based on central authorities which means, you cut off communication and the part you cut off is almost completely useless.
Long story short, China doesn't have the capability to equip their forces to actually pose a proper threat to the western nations, let alone to the US. And its extremely unlikely to change any time soon. Not to mention, China's economic health is entirely tied to the west. If that goes away, they are in a world of shit, even more so than the west.
The chances of China preparing for a "hot war", as others have offered, isn't good at all.
Can you point me at some pictures? Every android prototype I've seen looked like an iPhone rival (mytouch 3g basically). Considering Android, from the get go, has been looking to directly compete with Apple, frankly, I'm not sure that prototypes really have anything to do with anything.
You need to keep in mind, especially during early development, its not uncommon to develop on easily obtainable, low cost hardware simply because actual production units are not available, available in low yields, or too cost prohibitive to make widely available to developers right out the gate. In other words, its not uncommon or even unreasonable for development prototypes to have absolutely no form factor in common with production hardware. In fact, they are often even missing core hardware - GPS or phone/dsp chips. None of that means it has any influence on its true market goals or direction.
Terror attacks will come again from other sources. It doesn't matter how much money you spend. Maybe if you spend enough to create the situation that existed in former East Germany. But do anybody really want to go there?
That's exactly right. No one is safe in a free society. Which is exactly why Franklin wrote one of his more memorable quotes, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Trading safety for liberty and freedom is an essential price to be paid. Our forefathers knew it - and paid for it. Now we're willing to trade it all in for the mere illusion of safety. Its sad times to be an American.
But we've already researched those!
No...we...haven't. They require lots more research. I strongly urge you to look more into it. What appears to be possible with solar, versus what we've already done and/or accomplished, appears to only be the tip of the iceberg.
How much of your power comes from solar. Exactly. More research is required.
If that's the case then this isn't a router vulnerability, it's a browser/OS vulnerability. What am I missing here?
Its a browser vulnerability which leverages a compromised router. Nothing about it allows you to compromise a browser or router without first having full access to the router in the first place. Which basically already means you can do anything you which with any number of dozens of other vulnerabilities. So to summarize, if your router has been compromised, via some completely unrelated vulnerability, prepare to be compromised! Well, no shit!
Nice troll moderation scumbag!
Since the weapon is non-lethal, your example completely validates my original reply to you. In other words, both you and the moderator (assuming its likely also you or a friend) are all completely fucking idiots because one, you can't comprehend what you've read, and two, are so fucking stupid you seemingly believe your reply, which is completely unrelatable, has some profound meaning.
So please, if you're not the complete fucking idiot you clearly force everyone to see, please clarify as to how an idiotic post, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything in context, justifies anything other than you being moderated an idiot (troll), with responses in kind.
Congrats! You just established a new level of profound stupidity for slashdot. I fully expect to find your name published here in the near future.
The ultra economical Mooney. Most Mooneys gets better economy, at roughly 2x-3x the speed, than most larger vehicles.
Also read this reply.
Well said!
I want to stress the "It pulls sharply to one side, forcing the pilot to compensate with very heavy rudder action.", part of what you said. Most engines failures occur during take off and landing, which is in it self, the most dangerous profile of every flight; if for no other reason then relative altitude to the ground.
When a single engine fails during these profiles, the period in which the pilot has to not only react but to react properly is exceedingly small - even for SE planes. This added to the fact that the engine is typically producing its highest torque which creates its largest force on the plane, without one to counteract and while close to the ground means your sphincter is likely very unhappy during these events.
Add to the fact that more engines typically mean larger carrying capacity which usually translates into larger passenger loads means when the pilot screws up, they are far more likely to kill additional people; and more of them.
How can it protect your eyes, unless you wrap your head with the treated cloth?
The EM radiation is generated in pulses. The human body involuntarily reacts to the sensation generated by this device. This means unless you have an abnormal nervous system, your eyelids will automatically close and shield your eyes from any damage. At which point, if you're too dumb to either leave the area, take cover, or not keep your eyes closed while looking directly at the weapon, then you've managed to causes harm to yourself in spite of the fact your body has done everything possible to prevent it.
Thank you for pointing this stuff out.
People tend to look at broad statistics and believe that's them. Realistically, there are many things that good pilots do to considerably improve their safety statistics. Because of the differences in equipment and a single engine, its simply not reasonable to believe a SE plane can ever be as statistically safe as a commercial, multi-engine plane. But, it is reasonable and very likely for good pilots in well maintained aircraft to fly statistically safer than those driving in vehicles on the ground.
Contrary to popular belief, flying in a small plane is not a death sentence.
Most of the things that kill people in small planes are really, really, stupid behaviors which, for whatever reason, some pilots decide doesn't apply to them. For whatever reason, some pilots really do believe they are immune to the reality of physics and can't run out of gas...or believe their wings can stay on inside a hurricane...or believe they can recovery from a spin despite the manufacturer clearly stating it can't be done safely and reproducibly...so on and so on. Idiots like these lowest the safety statistics. But if you're not with a pilot who does dumb stuff like that, in a well maintained plane, your odds of remaining safe are dramatically improved.
Another killer are twin engine pilots who believe they are inherently safer because they have a second engine. Statistically these guys kill far more people than SE planes. Statistically, if a twin engine pilot has fewer than 100 hours annually, they are more dangerous than low proficiency, low hour SE pilots. The reality is, single engine failure in a piston twin is a bitch for most experienced pilots. For those less experienced and proficient, its usually lethal. So don't even let a twin pilot tell you they are inherently safe because they are full of shit if they do. In fact, that's likely reason to be very wary.
And contrary to popular belief, flying can be fairly affordable. The average non-commercial, private pilot makes less than $40K a year. The average plane owner makes less than $80K a year. And even with a headwind, a typical small, SE plane is still faster than ground transportation - and a hell of a lot more fun!
Left turn, meet you.
The idea is that harvesting energy has to be practical
This is research, which is clearly noted in the article and I even made purpose to specifically mention it. As such, pretty much everything in your post is off topic.
As for solar and whatever, you're ignoring the fact that by in large, they are themselves not currently practical. And, they have been barely explored compared to their hypothetical limits.
So once again, I must refer you back to the validity of the op's comment. Its a perfectly valid question as it pertains to research. With so many other viable sources of energy which potentially will scale dramatically better (or hell, just scale) in dire need of research, the op's comment is excruciatingly valid.
but it is something of a big deal because
Its actually not. If you already have access to the router, which absolutely is required, you can already do pretty much anything you want. For example, you could redirect all DNS requests to the "hacker's" DNS server and achieve exactly the same result. Or hell, you could install your own custom router firmware which forwards all LAN side http and ssh requests (transparent proxy) to the "hacker's" own proxies.
Basically, by the time this hack ever becomes relevant, you've likely already been seriously compromised. Basically, for this hack to ever become relevant means the "hacker" (*cough* script kiddie) is an absolute idiot because he's ignored the most obvious, easiest, and potentially the most harmful paths, all while requiring more work AND yet another component (a browser) to effectively use.
Its like bragging you can get into cars without keys. Come to find out, its because those cars haven't been locked. And then yet bragging more you can expertly jack cars, only to find out the key was left in the ignition. Basically, its only a cool hack if you're already an idiot; because you can't see what's obvious to any real hacker with skills. In other words, for this hack to be noteworthy means everyone who has ever seen a car is now an expert car thief. And that just ain't so.
You've never heard of solar, vast quantities of hydrogen, or even H3? Not to mention the polithera of different radiation everything is bathed in?
I don't know if you're being snarkey or just can't see the forest for the trees. The reality is, we are completely surrounded by bountiful energy sources just waiting to be tapped. Given that this is about research, it is a legitimate question to ask why we are working so hard to research one of the least abundant and low quantity, sources of energy when so many others with potential exist.
To be clear, I'm not saying the research is without merit. Nonetheless, the op's question is legitimate.
And yet to be topical, the article is complete bullshit.
In order to be compromised, you must first be compromised! Well, no shit! The author then goes on to explain that this is easy because most people don't change their router's password.
So to summarize the story, if your system is easily compromised, expect to be further compromised. If your system is not compromised, then nothing has changed. In other words, people who don't lock their door in high crime areas experience higher rates of property theft. News at 11.
I personally don't find this interesting, let alone news worthy.
Statement of fact is not necessarily bashing. There is a difference between legitimate criticism and bashing. So no, that's not nearly good enough.
At what point did you deduce that humans were rare energy sources?
Probably at the point he realized there is an entire universe out there.
No. Actually my comment is spot on. Read the entire thread. The difference is, new product categories just don't appear like they used to. Just the same, advertising as I depict is very much alive and well. Just look at medical and medication commercials; not to mention the now common infomercial.
Additionally, my wording is very clearly vague and in most generalized terms. I'm not teaching marketing 101 here. As such, its hardly a definitive definition of marketing. The fact that my wording makes it very clear there is both other forms of marketing and specialized forms of marketing, leaves one scratching their head as to why you even replied.
The type of marketing you are referring to are for products which are ubiquitous; whereby the intent is not to educate but to establish branding, maintain branding, or to simply remind the public their product is still around. As an example, most soda commercials fall into this category.
How about you just sell the product and let the market sort it out?
Sounds like you need to re-read the thread above. What product? What market? Exactly. Those simply don't exist without marketing. Word of mouth is a form of marketing.
Basically what you're saying is, you've never bought anything and don't know anything about any product. All you know about is a hypothetical product called a "widget", and you have no idea where these things called, computers, originate.
Hard not to roll eyes...
That's because how many new product concepts are introduced on a daily basis. Ignoring your deter, my origin comment, to which you needlessly took issue, was entirely spot on to begin with.