There are dozens of patents, going back to 1940, for printing conductors on a surface.
IBM based their 360 line of computers on a set of circuit modules which had the conductors (probably silk-screen printed) onto a ceramic wafer.
So there is nothing remotely new about printing conductors. Or resistors.
You can't print semiconductors-- transistors, diodes, FETs or LEDS-- they have to be very pure crystalline solids with definite junctions, so that's a big roadblock.
A while back I picked up a MicroVAX at a garage sale for $3, mainly for the 25-inch color monitor that came with it.
Plugged it in, and it started booting. And continued booting... About 15 minutes later it complained: "TCP/IP license has expired". No, not a DHCP lease, an actual software license. Sigh. Nice monitor tho.
All this "broadcasting power" stuff is not going to fly.
All the schemes that have been tried by Tesla and latecomers don't have a chance. Either they're spewing out energy, which goes down in intensity as the square of the distance, or they're like Sony, and making big air-core transformers, where the fields go down as the CUBE of the distance. You'll notice it takes a 40cm coil to send power 50cm. And so on.
Then there's the problem with all the scattered energy that does not end up in the receiving device. We're talking many watts of power. Microwave ovens are only allowed to leak a thousandth of a watt-- no national safety agency is going to allow ten thousand times that much power wandering around our houses. Yes, the power couples somewhat weakly to flesh, but it's still a lot of power to be bathing in 24/7.
Ah, no. "Resonance" is a very specific term, and has nothing to do with what happens with radar waves or with paint. Resonance can happen on the molecular level, but it's unlikely to match the Wi-Fi frequency band, plus the cross-section for capture of a thin coat of paint is miniscule.
Resonance can also happen on the macro-level, if you have structures that are conductive, 1/4 or 1/2 wavelength in size and with a matched impedance termination, none of which match what any paint would do.
As others have noted, it's likely there's a fundamental Shannon limit in there somewhere.
It's not impossible but very likely that this scheme will work, but you lose a proportionate amount of something else. Yes, NO FREE LUNCH. Likely candidates are that the Signal/noise ratio will suffer by the same factor as the alleged speed increase, or the phase margins will degrade by the same amount.
Again this kind of thing has been studied to death by Bell Labs. See their research journals-- probably 5000 pages there devoted to analyzing fiber optic communications.
Yes, there were some cars with sturdy bumpers. I remember so many cars had bumper jacks.
But I was thinking in particular of the 58 Ford Fairlane, or maybe it was the Mercury Convertible that my father was restoring a few years back. One look under the front bumper and I crawled out shaking my head. He knew immediately what I was thinking: "could not get any cruder, could it"?
We're both electrical rather than mechanical engineers, but it doesn't take a genius to recognize really crappy engineering.
Moving pulses through time has been done with electronic delay lines for about 80 years now. The theory and technology are well worked out, both in the time and frequency/phase domain. A friend of mine worked out an alternate theory around 1961, which left the theorists scratching their heads--- how could there be TWO optimum but different ways of squishing pulses? But it was true.
Anyway, you don't hear much about this technology as it's not a panacea of any sort. Any information you squeeze in time is going to undergo some unavoidable phase distortion-- not anything you want a lot of. And the inverse operation at the other end adds even more distortion. Yep, no free lunch, once again.
Right around that year GM went to a wild X-frame design which allowed the door sills to be moved down several inches, making the cars easier to step out of. But the X was not very strong-- there were plenty of news photos showing Impalas broken in half by not very hard accidents.
Also if you look at a 50's car, the bumpers are massive but held up by a couple thin pieces of mild steel stock-- a strong toddler could bend them out of place.
Sorry, off-by-one error. It was the R101 which dove into the ground in France, not the R100. Which reinforces my point-- the ship that went over the ocean did fine, the one that had the nerve to approach a hill went bye-bye.
Not only is this thing a sitting duck, it does not even need any bad guys to fail.
You see Afghanistan has *mountains*. Lots of them. That's where the no-goodniks hide. But on the first day of blimp school, they yell at you for several hours about avoiding loose women, bad weather, and particularly, approaching any kind of hill. Cue pictures of the R-100 disaster. Any questions?
As to its staying up for weeks over a designated area, that's mighty problematical as the winds up there can hit 50 knots and those little thrusters can maybe do 15 knots tops.
Holy bleepin diety. >They have not created an actual photovoltaic device, but have demonstrated highly efficient electron-hole pair generation when the carbon nanotube is illuminated. In other words, they have created a photodiode, not a photoresistor.
Respectfully, NO. To have a diode, you need a junction. If you only make electron-hole pairs, you just have a photoresistor. And if you read previous replies, you see people that have actually heard the author state it only works at very low temperatures, and with laser light to boot.
If you read TFA carefully it seems to be describing a PHOTORESISTOR, not a PHOTOVOLTAIC device.
They talk about APPLYING a potential difference across the thingy, and discovering it has a wide dynamic range OF RESISTANCE, not of any ability to generate voltage or current.
We don't need any more resistors, we have enough of them and they don't generate any power anyway.
This article is even more of a major fail than most.
Just when you thought things could not get any crazier, there's this story. Let's hope it's an early April Fool.
There's no way one could simulate more than about 12% of Python's complex OO semantics in JavaScript. Python itself already has a hard and slow slog trying to perform all its tricks.
To add yet another layer of translation or simulation sounds like a lose-lose proposition. Slower and hopelessly inexact.
Not to mention many of the more useful Python modules have a considerable C component, making them completely unusable as JavaScript.
( Yes, I know, in theory JavaScript is Turing-complete, so you can do anything in it, given a universe full of CPU's ).
Thanks for playing "When you can't fight the numbers, Obfuscate, Obfuscate, Obfuscate"
Noted author P.J O'Rourke is famous for this. He gets my kudos for using actual numerical arguments. but when he knows the numbers are not in his favor, he resorts to inserting a cute personal vignette or self-deprecating humor.
As an analogy, if a car company changed the color of the taillights on a car, most people would consider this mayhaps meriting adding a "-A" or at most "-Series 2" to the existing model name. Not many would consider it normal to be changing the name of the car from "The Extravaganza" to "Ford 7".
ASLR is sorta like moving the location of the barn door, while keeping it wide open.
Hint: The cows can still get out.
Perhaps the guys at Apple realize this and give ASLR a low priority for implementation.
Even so, adding ASLR to the Apple OS is something they could do with relative ease-- change the kernel and user-space mallocs() to be less predictable, munge the call stacks tobe less predictable, etc, etc, etc,---- mostly stuff that can be done with 50 lines of code here and there and not too many other places.
But again, it would be much more efficient to put that effort into closing any open barn doors, rather than painting the open gateways in random colors. Every five seconds.
Good bleepin grief, now you're really not making any sense.
The only reason they get "150 MPG" is because they charged up the batteries overnight. You can get any MPG you want if you cheat.
And we were talking about highway speeds, and a long trip. There's nothing in that blurb about going fast or long. In fact in the second graph they admit after 60 miles they're back to the regular MPG.
And it's not exactly a reliable report-- an EV fan club online is not going to go for accuracy nor detail....and unless you're eating worms, that is "bated" breath, not "baited" breath.
Let's finish this up-- you're only bringing smoke to the discussion. Believe anything you want.
There are dozens of Power Engineers at utilities and govt agencies whose job has been, for the last fifty years or so, to run just these kinds of simulations.
They do this all day, every day.
The problem areas are pinpointed, and sometimes money is budgeted toward ameliorating the situations.
Some problems can only be fixed by adding several billion dollar highlines, so those usually get postponed or ruled impractical.
Sorry, you just don't get it. One last try, in simple words:
On a long trip, across flattish terrain, there is NO ADVANTAGE to running the electric motor. None at all. For every horsepower than was drawn from the engine to charge up the battery, the motor can only deliver about 0.65. That's a basic fact. And it does not matter if the actual number is 0.68-- anything under 1.0, which is unachievable, is a net loss.
And I see you agree with me, the battery is worthless on the highway anyway. 1 to 2 horsepower hours translates to a trifling amount of help. Various sources write that the electrics cut off at 35 to 45 MPH, confirming my surmise.
Well anyway, I hope you turn around. Don't be beleiving everything you hear from salespersons.
Perhaps you should read the second sentence of the thing you reference:
>The vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if an attacker sent specially crafted TCP/IP packets over the network to a computer with a listening service.... now later on they may backpedal on that but to the average casual peruser of critical words, the second unequivocal sentence sure stands out.
Slashdot Mirror
There are dozens of patents, going back to 1940, for printing conductors on a surface.
IBM based their 360 line of computers on a set of circuit modules which had the conductors (probably silk-screen printed) onto a ceramic wafer.
So there is nothing remotely new about printing conductors. Or resistors.
You can't print semiconductors-- transistors, diodes, FETs or LEDS-- they have to be very pure crystalline solids with definite junctions, so that's a big roadblock.
Time-based licensing is NEW?
A while back I picked up a MicroVAX at a garage sale for $3, mainly for the 25-inch color monitor that came with it.
Plugged it in, and it started booting. And continued booting... About 15 minutes later it complained: "TCP/IP license has expired". No, not a DHCP lease, an
actual software license. Sigh. Nice monitor tho.
Ah, yes, windows. One thousand watts per square yard.
Are we not cautioned to put on sun-screen?
And wear UV-blocking sunglasses to avoid cataracts?
I don't think UL has domain over the Sun.
All this "broadcasting power" stuff is not going to fly.
All the schemes that have been tried by Tesla and latecomers don't have a chance. Either they're spewing out energy, which goes down in intensity as the square of the distance, or they're like Sony, and making big air-core transformers, where the fields go down as the CUBE of the distance. You'll notice it takes a 40cm coil to send power 50cm. And so on.
Then there's the problem with all the scattered energy that does not end up in the receiving device. We're talking many watts of power. Microwave ovens are only allowed to leak a thousandth of a watt-- no national safety agency is going to allow ten thousand times that much power wandering around our houses. Yes, the power couples somewhat weakly to flesh, but it's still a lot of power to be bathing in 24/7.
Ah, no. "Resonance" is a very specific term, and has nothing to do with what happens with radar waves or with paint. Resonance can happen on the molecular level, but it's unlikely to match the Wi-Fi frequency band, plus the cross-section for capture of a thin coat of paint is miniscule.
Resonance can also happen on the macro-level, if you have structures that are conductive, 1/4 or 1/2 wavelength in size and with a matched impedance termination, none of which match what any paint would do.
Dunno where they got the crap about "resonates".
The paint might act as an electrostatic shield, or as a lossy dielectric, both effects that will attenuate RF signals.
But resonate, no.
As others have noted, it's likely there's a fundamental Shannon limit in there somewhere.
It's not impossible but very likely that this scheme will work, but you lose a proportionate amount of something else. Yes, NO FREE LUNCH. Likely candidates are that the Signal/noise ratio will suffer by the same factor as the alleged speed increase, or the phase margins will degrade by the same amount.
Again this kind of thing has been studied to death by Bell Labs. See their research journals-- probably 5000 pages there devoted to analyzing fiber optic communications.
Yes, there were some cars with sturdy bumpers. I remember so many cars had bumper jacks.
But I was thinking in particular of the 58 Ford Fairlane, or maybe it was the Mercury Convertible that my father was restoring a few years back. One look under the front bumper and I crawled out shaking my head. He knew immediately what I was thinking: "could not get any cruder, could it"?
We're both electrical rather than mechanical engineers, but it doesn't take a genius to recognize really crappy engineering.
Moving pulses through time has been done with electronic delay lines for about 80 years now. The theory and technology are well worked out, both in the time and frequency/phase domain. A friend of mine worked out an alternate theory around 1961, which left the theorists scratching their heads--- how could there be TWO optimum but different ways of squishing pulses? But it was true.
Anyway, you don't hear much about this technology as it's not a panacea of any sort. Any information you squeeze in time is going to undergo some unavoidable phase distortion-- not anything you want a lot of. And the inverse operation at the other end adds even more distortion. Yep, no free lunch, once again.
Right around that year GM went to a wild X-frame design which allowed the door sills to be moved down several inches, making the cars easier to step out of. But the X was not very strong-- there were plenty of news photos showing Impalas broken in half by not very hard accidents.
Also if you look at a 50's car, the bumpers are massive but held up by a couple thin pieces of mild steel stock-- a strong toddler could bend them out of place.
Sorry, off-by-one error. It was the R101 which dove into the ground in France, not the R100. Which reinforces my point-- the ship that went over the ocean did fine, the one that had the nerve to approach a hill went bye-bye.
Not only is this thing a sitting duck, it does not even need any bad guys to fail.
You see Afghanistan has *mountains*. Lots of them. That's where the no-goodniks hide.
But on the first day of blimp school, they yell at you for several hours about avoiding loose women, bad weather, and particularly, approaching any kind of hill.
Cue pictures of the R-100 disaster. Any questions?
As to its staying up for weeks over a designated area, that's mighty problematical as the winds up there can hit 50 knots and those little thrusters can maybe do 15 knots tops.
Maybe with a long rope and an anchor?
Holy bleepin diety.
>They have not created an actual photovoltaic device, but have demonstrated highly efficient electron-hole pair generation when the carbon nanotube is illuminated. In other words, they have created a photodiode, not a photoresistor.
Respectfully, NO. To have a diode, you need a junction. If you only make electron-hole pairs, you just have a photoresistor. And if you read previous replies, you see people that have actually heard the author state it only works at very low temperatures, and with laser light to boot.
>But they describe it as a photo-diode.
Photo-diodes can be used in resistive or voltaic modes. The original page is not any clearer.
In any case it still an answer to a non-existent problem-- photocells do just fine in full sunlight.
If you read TFA carefully it seems to be describing a PHOTORESISTOR, not a PHOTOVOLTAIC device.
They talk about APPLYING a potential difference across the thingy, and discovering it has a wide dynamic range OF RESISTANCE, not of any ability to generate voltage or current.
We don't need any more resistors, we have enough of them and they don't generate any power anyway.
This article is even more of a major fail than most.
COBOL did a lot of things right, things that a lot of modern languages ignored.
Little things like:
* Having a manufacturer and machine and OS-independent standard.
* Quasi human-readable code.
* "MOVE CORRESPONDING"
that said, it's just as easy for numbskulls to write bad COBOL as to write bad C++ or bad Ruby.
Just when you thought things could not get any crazier, there's this story. Let's hope it's an early April Fool.
There's no way one could simulate more than about 12% of Python's complex OO semantics in JavaScript.
Python itself already has a hard and slow slog trying to perform all its tricks.
To add yet another layer of translation or simulation sounds like a lose-lose proposition. Slower and hopelessly inexact.
Not to mention many of the more useful Python modules have a considerable C component, making them completely unusable as JavaScript.
( Yes, I know, in theory JavaScript is Turing-complete, so you can do anything in it, given a universe full of CPU's ).
Thanks for playing "When you can't fight the numbers, Obfuscate, Obfuscate, Obfuscate"
Noted author P.J O'Rourke is famous for this. He gets my kudos for using actual numerical arguments. but when he knows the numbers are not in his favor, he resorts to inserting a cute personal vignette or self-deprecating humor.
As an analogy, if a car company changed the color of the taillights on a car, most people would consider this mayhaps meriting adding a "-A" or at most "-Series 2" to the existing model name. Not many would consider it normal to be changing the name of the car from "The Extravaganza" to "Ford 7".
ASLR is sorta like moving the location of the barn door, while keeping it wide open.
Hint: The cows can still get out.
Perhaps the guys at Apple realize this and give ASLR a low priority for implementation.
Even so, adding ASLR to the Apple OS is something they could do with relative ease-- change the kernel and user-space mallocs() to be less predictable, munge the call stacks tobe less predictable, etc, etc, etc,---- mostly stuff that can be done with 50 lines of code here and there and not too many other places.
But again, it would be much more efficient to put that effort into closing any open barn doors, rather than painting the open gateways in random colors. Every five seconds.
Good bleepin grief, now you're really not making any sense.
The only reason they get "150 MPG" is because they charged up the batteries overnight. You can get any MPG you want if you cheat.
And we were talking about highway speeds, and a long trip. There's nothing in that blurb about going fast or long. In fact in the second graph they admit after 60 miles they're back to the regular MPG.
And it's not exactly a reliable report-- an EV fan club online is not going to go for accuracy nor detail. ...and unless you're eating worms, that is "bated" breath, not "baited" breath.
Let's finish this up-- you're only bringing smoke to the discussion. Believe anything you want.
There are dozens of Power Engineers at utilities and govt agencies whose job has been, for the last fifty years or so, to run just these kinds of simulations.
They do this all day, every day.
The problem areas are pinpointed, and sometimes money is budgeted toward ameliorating the situations.
Some problems can only be fixed by adding several billion dollar highlines, so those usually get postponed or ruled impractical.
Sorry, you just don't get it. One last try, in simple words:
On a long trip, across flattish terrain, there is NO ADVANTAGE to running the electric motor. None at all. For every horsepower than was drawn from the engine to charge up the battery, the motor can only deliver about 0.65. That's a basic fact. And it does not matter if the actual number is 0.68-- anything under 1.0, which is unachievable, is a net loss.
If you want references, well, Toyota is mighty coy about this, which should be a strong hint that it's not very good. The only referenfce I can find is to a technical paper where they claim with improved algorithms they can get the efficiency up to 72%: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T08-4RGFCYS-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1012703614&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e6affcf397e4f401e856c2e452ecb737
And I see you agree with me, the battery is worthless on the highway anyway. 1 to 2 horsepower hours translates to a trifling amount of help. Various sources write that the electrics cut off at 35 to 45 MPH, confirming my surmise.
Well anyway, I hope you turn around. Don't be beleiving everything you hear from salespersons.
I'm sorry you're a fanboy idiot. Really.
I don't know if we're quite f***ing morons. I seem to recall somebody compared Vista and Windows 7 installs and found something like 97% commonality.
In my book, a 3% change is barely a service pack, much less meriting a new version number, much less meriting dropping a moniker.
Sorry if I missed something.
Perhaps you should read the second sentence of the thing you reference:
>The vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if an attacker sent specially crafted TCP/IP packets over the network to a computer with a listening service. ... now later on they may backpedal on that but to the average casual peruser of critical words, the second unequivocal sentence sure stands out.
For some unfathomable reason, MS rates remote code execution as a LOW impact problem for XP.
And somehow, the TCP stack, perhaps the most modular and with the most well-defined interfaces, can't be replaced wholesale.
This makes no sense, unless they're trying to get people to spend $$$ on moving to "Windows 7",
or as the congnoscenti call it, "Vista SP2".
ooooohhh.....