but until the EU even begin to consider similar laws that I get a say in, there's nothing I can do for you at all.
Such laws are not only considered but in full force already. E.g. the Pirate Bay is blocked in several countries already via DNS blacklisting. The technology was pioneered by the telecoms for stopping child pornography, so it was easy for the courts to require the ISP's to implement the blocking. The tools were already in place after all.
You can easily run the graphics card option ROM in a sandbox. Various non-x86 Linux ports do that. It just needs running once so the card is set up; you don't need to call into it afterwards.
Of course the option ROM could be malicious, but since you're running it in a sandbox it can't do any harm at boot. Afterwards the graphics card tends to have unlimited access to memory with DMA, which defeats all protections, but that is the case whether you call the ROM or not. Beating malicious hardware is difficult.
IANAL, but this would appear to contravene European laws on restrictive trade practices. I can see another monopoly related court case on the horizon
Yes, their wrist really HURTS from last timely. SURELY they won't do it again after such punishment.
Re:Ethanol is feasible, just not here...
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1
Great for sugar beets though.
Yes, but what use are they? If you want sugar, grow sugar cane. If you don't want sugar, there are better crops than sugar beets.
The only reason to grow sugar beets is if you are afraid you will be held hostage by the evil sugar barons. I think there are greater threats in this world, and if I have to pick between doing without wheat and doing without sugar, I'll certainly give up on the sugar.
Re:Ethanol is feasible, just not here...
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 2
However, the USA has a massive pre-existing investment in corn.
The USA is mostly a lousy place to grow sugar cane.
Re:Maybe ethanol, but not corn ethanol
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 2
As a plant, it just takes too much energy to grow the corn, transport it, and you get too little energy back.
Yes, ethanol from plants is a loss, except possibly from sugar cane under perfect conditions. Ethanol may become viable from algae or synthesized from natural gas, but the natural gas route seems a bit stupid since cars run on that already. Either way we need to get 5% efficiency or better, and plants struggle to reach that.
The problem is that e85 has less energy than standard gas does
Almost, but really the problem is that gas is sold by volume rather than by mass. This also means you get considerably less for your money in warmer climates.
Let us know when they invent a solar panel that works at night.
Covering night energy needs is trivial in most of the world, assuming that energy is plentiful in daytime. The only significant challenge is to keep houses warm in cold climates, and heat is easy to store for half a day.
The meagre needs for industry and households for actual electricity at night can be met by hydro + wind almost everywhere and natural gas in the remaining areas.
So it wasn't fine. It could have been protected merely by locating the site a little further inland.
You can't do that. Nuclear power plants need cooling, lots of it, because they don't heat their water properly. This means they need to be near a river or the ocean, or you need to pipe lots of water to them. If you go for pipes, better protect them well against failure, because if they fail you will have the exact Fukushima scenario again -- and your energy needs for cooling are much higher, so you will have many more backup generators to keep working and much more fuel to protect.
There are designs which get their steam properly hot (800K at least), but AFAIK none are in commercial use yet.
In the even of a significant flooding catastrophe making large areas of those cities uninhabitable, the pressure to imprison for life or execute those that were the major proponents of activities that likely brought about those events will be undeniable. Whether corporate executive or politician, you can be assured that those affected both rich and poor will be screaming for their heads.
I doubt that. The ones against the wall will be the scientists, accused of not warning against the catastrophe, or the green energy industry, accused of not making solutions available at affordable prices.
A good rule of thumb is the RPMs where the petrol engine is at its maximum efficiency are the RPMs where it can produce the highest torque.
It doesn't matter which RPM's the petrol engine is most efficient at, because you don't get to pick RPM's except by changing gears -- and you'll never get more efficient by shifting down. Lower gears means you are running the engine at less load, and that kills efficiency in a petrol engine. Unless you increase acceleration accordingly, in which case you reach your steady speed quicker with the accompanying loss of efficiency due to too-low load.
And yes, automatic transmissions can easily kill your efficiency in a variety of interesting ways. They do have the advantage that they are better at picking higher gears earlier than most manual drivers manage.
For modern engines whether you accelerate fast or slow doesn't make a big difference to the efficiency of the engine,
Perhaps true for the modern turbo-charged cars, but any naturally aspirated petrol car is most efficient when it is at the highest load. This means pretty much pedal to the metal but in as high a gear as possible. This is not true if the engine control makes the mixture less lean in that situation, but it seems most engine controls only do that at higher RPM's (which is another good reason to avoid high RPM's)
Petrol engines really suck at partial load. You really want turbo so you can get away with a tiny engine if you have a petrol car. Diesels suffer much less, but diesel engines are rather large, so you want turbo to avoid having to lug a lot of metal around. No matter what you really want turbo.
As a result, I will never, ever, EVER have another Windows phone. In my line of work it's just too risky to have a phone that may at some random time decline to RING.
While your example is way worse than other smartphones, approximately all of them are crap at actually receiving calls. Many of them miss the first call notification from the cell phone network and so they only start ringing after the second notification, 7 seconds later. If you then aren't very quick at responding, you risk that the caller hangs up, thinking that you are unavailable.
You would think that with preemptive multitasking this would never be a problem, especially in the day of 1GHz phone CPU's.
I can see how assigning random security contexts to files might cause weird backup problems if the server you're backing up to is also running SELinux.
Exactly. Also, that server will try to relabel the files as appropriate for its SELinux setup. There are various file attributes you don't really want on a backup server either, and you certainly don't want device files floating around with strange ownerships.
By default, the Host header from the request is not forwarded, but is set based on the proxy_pass statement. To forward the requested Host header, it is necessary to use:
proxy_set_header Host $host;
I haven't heard of a web server which refuses to accept Host headers just because the client sends HTTP/1.0 instead of/1.1.
Slashdot Mirror
The UEFI BIOS can do the sandboxing and run the option ROM. I really can't imagine that this will turn out to be a problem.
but until the EU even begin to consider similar laws that I get a say in, there's nothing I can do for you at all.
Such laws are not only considered but in full force already. E.g. the Pirate Bay is blocked in several countries already via DNS blacklisting. The technology was pioneered by the telecoms for stopping child pornography, so it was easy for the courts to require the ISP's to implement the blocking. The tools were already in place after all.
The way China does it is rather effective.
You can easily run the graphics card option ROM in a sandbox. Various non-x86 Linux ports do that. It just needs running once so the card is set up; you don't need to call into it afterwards.
Of course the option ROM could be malicious, but since you're running it in a sandbox it can't do any harm at boot. Afterwards the graphics card tends to have unlimited access to memory with DMA, which defeats all protections, but that is the case whether you call the ROM or not. Beating malicious hardware is difficult.
If a generic video driver would work to give BIOS basic video functionality in preboot, why wouldn't we be using those now?
Who doesn't use them now? I am completely confused about what you are saying, graphical BIOS has existed for 20 years on PC's.
All PC video cards do VGA in hardware (firmware). You only need one driver for all graphics cards if you can live with 640x480 in 16 colours.
IANAL, but this would appear to contravene European laws on restrictive trade practices. I can see another monopoly related court case on the horizon
Yes, their wrist really HURTS from last timely. SURELY they won't do it again after such punishment.
Great for sugar beets though.
Yes, but what use are they? If you want sugar, grow sugar cane. If you don't want sugar, there are better crops than sugar beets.
The only reason to grow sugar beets is if you are afraid you will be held hostage by the evil sugar barons. I think there are greater threats in this world, and if I have to pick between doing without wheat and doing without sugar, I'll certainly give up on the sugar.
However, the USA has a massive pre-existing investment in corn.
The USA is mostly a lousy place to grow sugar cane.
As a plant, it just takes too much energy to grow the corn, transport it, and you get too little energy back.
Yes, ethanol from plants is a loss, except possibly from sugar cane under perfect conditions. Ethanol may become viable from algae or synthesized from natural gas, but the natural gas route seems a bit stupid since cars run on that already. Either way we need to get 5% efficiency or better, and plants struggle to reach that.
The problem is that e85 has less energy than standard gas does
Almost, but really the problem is that gas is sold by volume rather than by mass. This also means you get considerably less for your money in warmer climates.
1920*1080 which is the highest consumer resolution available is around 2MP
1920x1080 is around 6MP, just with a fairly unfortunate pixel layout. Camera pixels are single-colour.
Since the decoder stage is large and power-hungry
It isn't. Decoding was a major expense when RISC was invented, but transistors are cheap now. Even on a phone.
Let us know when they invent a solar panel that works at night.
Covering night energy needs is trivial in most of the world, assuming that energy is plentiful in daytime. The only significant challenge is to keep houses warm in cold climates, and heat is easy to store for half a day.
The meagre needs for industry and households for actual electricity at night can be met by hydro + wind almost everywhere and natural gas in the remaining areas.
So it wasn't fine. It could have been protected merely by locating the site a little further inland.
You can't do that. Nuclear power plants need cooling, lots of it, because they don't heat their water properly. This means they need to be near a river or the ocean, or you need to pipe lots of water to them. If you go for pipes, better protect them well against failure, because if they fail you will have the exact Fukushima scenario again -- and your energy needs for cooling are much higher, so you will have many more backup generators to keep working and much more fuel to protect.
There are designs which get their steam properly hot (800K at least), but AFAIK none are in commercial use yet.
So Canada doesn't have to do anything because it happens to control vast areas of mostly-useless land?
In the even of a significant flooding catastrophe making large areas of those cities uninhabitable, the pressure to imprison for life or execute those that were the major proponents of activities that likely brought about those events will be undeniable. Whether corporate executive or politician, you can be assured that those affected both rich and poor will be screaming for their heads.
I doubt that. The ones against the wall will be the scientists, accused of not warning against the catastrophe, or the green energy industry, accused of not making solutions available at affordable prices.
A good rule of thumb is the RPMs where the petrol engine is at its maximum efficiency are the RPMs where it can produce the highest torque.
It doesn't matter which RPM's the petrol engine is most efficient at, because you don't get to pick RPM's except by changing gears -- and you'll never get more efficient by shifting down. Lower gears means you are running the engine at less load, and that kills efficiency in a petrol engine. Unless you increase acceleration accordingly, in which case you reach your steady speed quicker with the accompanying loss of efficiency due to too-low load.
And yes, automatic transmissions can easily kill your efficiency in a variety of interesting ways. They do have the advantage that they are better at picking higher gears earlier than most manual drivers manage.
they don't make fuel efficient vehicles for large families
The VW Touran has room for 7. Is that big enough? 5.9l/100km or 40mpg petrol, 4.6l/100km or 51mpg diesel.
I would want my government and my banks to fuciking FIX their CREDIT CARD SECURITY and their BANKING LAWS!
Secondly, last I recall, citizens in other countries don't fear being blown up, shot, kidnapped, and tortured by Israelis.
Err, what? All that and you haven't heard of Mossad? They don't do much blowing up anymore, but plenty of the rest.
For modern engines whether you accelerate fast or slow doesn't make a big difference to the efficiency of the engine,
Perhaps true for the modern turbo-charged cars, but any naturally aspirated petrol car is most efficient when it is at the highest load. This means pretty much pedal to the metal but in as high a gear as possible. This is not true if the engine control makes the mixture less lean in that situation, but it seems most engine controls only do that at higher RPM's (which is another good reason to avoid high RPM's)
Petrol engines really suck at partial load. You really want turbo so you can get away with a tiny engine if you have a petrol car. Diesels suffer much less, but diesel engines are rather large, so you want turbo to avoid having to lug a lot of metal around. No matter what you really want turbo.
s/turbo/compressor/g depending on taste.
As a result, I will never, ever, EVER have another Windows phone. In my line of work it's just too risky to have a phone that may at some random time decline to RING.
While your example is way worse than other smartphones, approximately all of them are crap at actually receiving calls. Many of them miss the first call notification from the cell phone network and so they only start ringing after the second notification, 7 seconds later. If you then aren't very quick at responding, you risk that the caller hangs up, thinking that you are unavailable.
You would think that with preemptive multitasking this would never be a problem, especially in the day of 1GHz phone CPU's.
I can see how assigning random security contexts to files might cause weird backup problems if the server you're backing up to is also running SELinux.
Exactly. Also, that server will try to relabel the files as appropriate for its SELinux setup. There are various file attributes you don't really want on a backup server either, and you certainly don't want device files floating around with strange ownerships.
I don't use nginx, but:
By default, the Host header from the request is not forwarded, but is set based on the proxy_pass statement. To forward the requested Host header, it is necessary to use:
proxy_set_header Host $host;
I haven't heard of a web server which refuses to accept Host headers just because the client sends HTTP/1.0 instead of/1.1.