First - most cars get about 400 miles to the tank.
I think I can count on one hand the number of times I drove without stopping until my tank went from full to empty. And I remember very clearly not being happy about it. Stopping would have done me good.
I used to drive this route quite a bit, stopping - with one stop in the middle (Reynoldsburg, OH). I would try to only get gas at the three stops if I could help it. My Grand Marquis did quite well at doing such. As you can see, (if you look at the link) the trip broke into two legs consisting of 393 mi and 325 mi each. I knew a lot of people that would do more than that. So, 400 miles was certainly needed - though I only once filled up more than 17 gallons in the tank, but never on one of those trips. At the one stop in the middle, I'd stop for an hour or so (usually a meal) and then complete the trip. It'd take anywhere from 11.5 to 13 hours (depending on traffic, conditions, etc.).
average 60 to 65 mph
Remember - some places (Michigan, West Virginia to name two I know of, but there are other states too) have speed limits higher than 65. Some states out in the western U.S. have (or use to have) times of day when there was no posted speed limit and you do whatever you find safe. So, that may or may not be a good average to assume - I don't know. For most states, that is probably a good highway average to use, supposing everyone follows the speed limits. YMMV.;-)
If someone could squeeze 400 miles into a charge, then I have no doubts electrics would be completely viable. I still believe 300 would be ok for most.
You're probably right. But we still need to make sure that the long travelers can do it too. Then again, forcing them to take a break a little earlier might be a good thing. But remember, out in western parts of the U.S. that might not be so viable to do.
I'd say that over 75% of the Windows Mobile market consists of handsets manufactured by HTC and Motorola
Interesting...as Motorola uses a lot of Linux stuff for the handsets too. So even with Motorola, Windows Mobile is not the majority of what they ship.;-)
However, it's still a matter of who meets the magic numbers. I submit that the first company to develop an all electric car that will travel 300 miles on one charge, can recharge in less than 30 minutes plugged in, will recharge slowly in the sun on its own and costs less than $40,000 will sell like hot cakes.
First - most cars get about 400 miles to the tank. I've seen this with my parent's 1995 Plymouth Voyager (20 gallon tank), my 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis (20 gallon tank, now replaced), my wife's 1994 Infiniti J30 (18 or 20 gallon tank), and my 2005 Mazda 3s Hatchback (14 gallon tank). I've also seen this with a cross-over SUV/Van by chevy (can't remember the name off hand) that we rented and drove across country. So you really need 400 miles per charge of the batteries - and that's 400 miles effective use, so you really need to have it up to around 450 or 500 miles to ensure the same kind of power availability over that 400 mile effective use.
Second, you have recharge time. As someone else pointed out, it takes only a few minutes to fill a tank with gas. Unfortunately, it would not be easy to provide the same kind of battery charge technology safely. So, the only real solution is to (a) do as you said, recharge in less than 1/2 hour - even an hour might suffice - so that people could recharge at night or between trips quickly, and (b) add a small combustion engine - I'm talking lawn mower size or smaller - that has enough power to recharge the batteries while the vehicle is in operation to full charge on a small amount of fuel (1 gallon or less). By combining these two together, you could effectively travel across country on a single tank of fuel (assuming the same size tank as current vehicles, which wouldn't happen - it'd more likely end up being a 2 to 5 gallon tank), or even go the entire life of the vehicle without using any gas (if you don't travel that far, or only go a charges worth a day).
Of course, here's another kicker - if you can recharge in under 1/2 hour, we could easily change over to full electrics. Why? Restaurants & hotels/motels/camp-grounds could install charge facilities - so you travel the battery's worth in the morning, stop have lunch & recharge, then do the same in the afternoon, stop have dinner & recharge, travel some more, stop at a hotel/motel/camp-ground for the night & recharge. You still need a 400 mile effective use out of the batteries, but it could bring a big boost to certain industries by giving people another reason to stop at them and spend more money there. It would also drive competition for providing electricity through the roof.
It's amazing what a false sense of security people get from running anti-virus software. They don't even realize that they still have to be careful because 0-day threats aren't in the latest virus definitions yet. They think they can do whatever they want, because they are protected.
The whole company has since gone anti-virus free on the desktop, and problem reports and performance complaints have dropped way down. Education and a healthy dose of respect for the evils of the world work better than any anti-virus on the market. And the cost savings are nice too.
I'd really recommend putting the free ClamAV for Windows on the PCs. While you were successful thus far, it won't last forever. So both of you are taking a lot of risk.
That said, as others have pointed out - you were successful because you made them responsible. Removing responsibility is not usually a good thing.
So, I'd recommend continue giving them the responsibility, and put ClamAV on the systems. Perhaps you can get the best of both worlds. (FYI - ClamAV was recently found to one of the top 3 AVs for detecting viruses.) This is also the path I take to my own home network.
Some policies just aren't reasonable or well thought out. This article is clearly blowing the issue out of perspective by not separating out different behaviors.
Checking personal e-mail from a work computer-- 73% of those who have done this at work believe it is not risky, despite the fact that they could unknowingly download a virus that infects the corporate network.
Wow, really? I'll stick to those corporate virus-free e-mail accounts from now on. Are they also completely free of spam? That would be nice too.
I could understand a policy requiring checking personal e-mail through a webmail interface, and disallowing POP/SMTP access to personal e-mails. Why? B/c webmail not only goes through the providers A/V and Spam filters, but also goes through your own networks virus filters too. And it has the same level of risk as browsing the web any way - anything you can do in webmail, you can pretty much do on any web page.
The only reason to go beyond that is if your really worried about company info going out the wrong channels, which could happen - but if your employees are going to send it out via e-mail, then the people you'd be worried about would just as likely do it through their company e-mail account any way - or find another method if they are really intent on doing so. (They could even do so from home!)
There are a lot of really stupid IT policies out there that, in the name of security, in fact merely hinder getting work done. I am not talking about P2P. Giving a developer a workstation with a user account with no administrator privileges on Windows is among them.
Depends on the kind of developing you are doing. There are many IDEs and testing suites that don't require local admin access.
Microsoft's IDE & compilers (Visual Studios) cannot debug software without local admin access. For Windows developers that is a big problem in itself - especially for those developing APIs as other compilers do not necessarily create binary compatible libraries to Microsoft's Windows Library format(s) - one of the reasons that GCC and friends don't do too well for Windows oriented development.
Few people actually notice the restrictions, and those that do are often seeking to abuse the system.
Or are in a job that is atypical of who you designed the restrictions for. Software Developers are typically in that atypical relationship with network policies.
The only way I've found to reliably block all p2p and other things without major hassles in the firewall is to block everything, install a proxy server for HTTP, HTTPS and FTP and then only punch out ports from trusted machines and with good valid reasons from people (and a paper trail for those reasons). eg, the PBX can talk to our upstream SIP provider, the mail server can speak port 25 to the outside world but nobody else can and my desktop PC has rsync access to our ISPs file mirror.
I have procedures in place to get things like torrents because they occasionally have legitimate uses. I have one machine that only I have a user account on. If someone thinks a torrent is useful and related to work they can ask me to get that torrent for them. It keeps them from running clients on their own PCs and still allows them to get files if needed. Half the time they just want torrents of files like Linux distros that are available on our ISP's mirror at no data charge to us.
Congradulations for killing the productivity of all your development teams, software engineers, and system admins.
Honestly - I wouldn't be able to either (a) do my job, or (b) do my job as efficiently if it weren't for a lot of the open source tools that I use. I also wouldn't be able to do the research and learn new tools that provide great productivity enhancements to my work and the projects I work on.
Furthermore, I wouldn't have been able to comply with other company policies. My company is very keen on version controlling stuff - stuff in general - and several projects I have been on did not provide a means (their method was simply copy the directory to a backup location, and name the copy a version, then move on) to do version control. I had to go out and get the tools myself - and we didn't have money to buy the tools either. So I installed Subversion, and have since become a Subversion admin and expert.
Sure, I could have probably have come to you for those downloads, but in a large organization (such as where I work) that really wouldn't work. Your solution doesn't scale as the company grows, and will eventually need to be replaced by something that does.
Additionally, your methods break my ability to keep systems I administer up to date and secure. The company put a firewall in place, similar to what you describe, and I was no longer able to get updates for my Gentoo server as a result - those authenticating firewalls typically have problems with Linux systems and work 50% to 75% of the time with the Windows systems they were designed to work with. So I went from being able to keep a system up-to-date and secure, to just keeping it running as is. (FYI - I chose Gentoo so that I could keep it up to date, and use the built in packaging system. IT managed to only break security. Oh - and I do have the paper work in to resolve it. It's been nearly 6 months, and no progress has been made. The system is still running, and still being used - but no updates.)
Thanks for foobar'ng your own network. I'm sure the crackers will love it.
I thought the 386 and successor architectures were fundamentally different from the original 8086 and 80286 architectures, particularly with regard to support for multitasking and memory protection. The transition to the 386 was pretty apparent to me. I used Desqview/386 to run more than one DOS program at a time in parallel, a feat not possible on any of the earlier x86 chips.
The i386 was not fundamentally different. It just added more features, and extended to 32-bit from i286's 16-bit. It also allowed for the OS to choose between more memory formats, etc. and did a better job at multitasking. In a sense, it is kind of like the jump we are seeing now in the GPU space between the GPUs that did single tasking and the DX10 compliant GPUs that can allow themselves to be used for other tasks as well using multitasking methods.
I admit to being a total novice in these areas, but intuitively I imagined that a hypervisor was nothing more than a stripped-down multitasking OS which runs the VMs as separate processes, presents virtual hardware interfaces to the VMs, and manages hardware contention among them. Linux seems to do a pretty good job of preventing processes from overstepping their bounds and stepping on other processes. Isn't a hypervisor doing essentially the same thing Linux is doing, just at a higher level of abstraction?
Yes, that is basically the concept. Problem is from a security POV if the host OS (hypervisor, VM, etc.) gets compromised, then everything under is compromised. That's the nature of security. So it doesn't really offer any security advantages.
* virtualizing hardware is inherently less secure than the physical segmentation of using actual, separate machines, so when you consolidate many machines onto a VM system you have a net loss in security.
It might be somewhat less secure but it provides enormous benefits.
It's not a matter of might - it is inherently. Why? Because if your host OS gets compromised than all of your guests OSes are compromised. Yes, you can mitigate the risk down a little (e.g. guest OS's have to encrypt outgoing data, but that's full of extra overhead on top of it) so that the host OS cannot steal data; but they are non-the-less compromised as the host OS could just go and read their memory, fake input/output data, etc. and the guest OS has no way of knowing, nor any way to really be able to handle it.
So when you would have before VM's just had one system compromised, you now have N systems compromised - where N is the number of guest OS's running in the VM's. I'd say that's a lot less secure.
i don't think we've seen a really big bright comet in how long? hasn't it been decades, or centuries even? anywhere in the world?...
we need a big bright comet because history teaches us that warring factions oftentimes stop their fighting and lay down their arms when shocked at the sight
Historically, may be - when people feared what the "gods" might do.
Today? Not likely, except may among small tribes that haven't touched modern civilization yet. But we wouldn't know about them any way...so...life will continue as normal.
You can't turn anything off. Try killing lsass.exe in task manager and see how long your Windows PC remains running...
Disclaimer: Do this at your own risk.
Sure Task Manager won't kill it - it's a service. You have to go to Control Panel->Administrative Tools -> Services (or run "services.msc" - without the quotes), and then select "Net Logon" and tell it to 'stop'. (You'll have to be admin to do this.) It'll work, and if you set it to manual or disabled it won't restart again.;-)
Now, it's not likely wise to do so, but if you really want to that's how. From the description (WinXP) it will likely only affect your ability to logon to domain/share resources.
Again, use this advice as your own risk. If you screw up your computer by doing it, don't blame me.
After all, before global warming, no one had ever in history seen a moon being decimated like this. I estimate that by 2050 half of the moons will be destroyed by meteors and death stars. The moons of some planets and pseudo planets may be spared, but most will be devastated. Their rubble will fall upon our metropolitan areas and million dollar summer homes, leaving us homeless and starving for food.
Global Warming is the problem, but not for that reason. We didn't evolve on Earth. We evolved on Saturn and migrated to Earth after we caused a Global catastrophe on Saturn that lead to Global warming, which caused the aforementioned moon to be destroyed, and resulted in Saturn having its current climate conditions. If we're not careful, we'll do the same here.
Assuming that model years don't make too much difference, we'll use the current one from Ford's website, which according to the specs (under Capacity) has a 20 gallon tank.
Thus, we come to 12.31 miles per 20 gallons, which is roughly 0.61553 miler per gallon.
Of course, that is only taking the vertical distance into account. You might do a bit better by computing the horizontal distance too, but that requires knowing how fast the vehicle is moving horizontally, so that we can then compute the hypotenuse which the vehicle travels on, though it'd likely be more of a curve than a straight line - especially given the curvature of the earth, not to mention that the vertical speed is likely to be a lot higher than the horizontal speed, and the speedometer likely peaks at either 88 mph, 120 mph, 160 mph, or 180 mph - though 88 mph and 120 mph are the most likely.
Also, don't forget about the vehicular range - again, going back to the specs of the Taurus we'll take the upper limit of 28 miles per gallon, and with a 20 gallon tank, that gives us a range of 560 miles, assuming highway speed of likely 55 mph given this is an EPA rating. Now, given that you can still be running near speed at when the tank goes empty - you'll likely have a greater range but only by a few miles. Even then, that 560 miles is really optimistic (most vehicles only get 400 miles per tank last I observed, so the Taurus is doing really well at 560 miles).
So, you'll probably do better than 0.61553 miles per gallon, however, it isn't likely going to be all that good - and in either case, the vehicle is useless after the trip, and whatever fuel would have been left in the tank (assuming there is any).
Any how...I'll leave you to do the final steps if you wanted to figure out the maximum the vehicle could travel. Here's even a list of the needed equations (and then some). Just remember - start with 0 mph vertical velocity, factor in 0 to 55 mph horizontal velocity, total horizontal distance possible for the tank, and (if you didn't hit the ground yet) the horizontal distance the vehicles coasts as it bleeds off the last bit of its horizontal speed.
Oh, and if you really want to have some fun, you could calculate the size of the explosion when it hits the ground based on the remaining fuel (if any) in the tank.
To use DOCSIS 3.0, not only would you need new modems that are compatible with this standard, but the network itself also needs to be upgraded. Lines need to have higher bandwidth and the CTMS has to be upgraded/replaced with DOCSIS 3.0-compatible hardware. Some MSOs still use DOCSIS 1.1, which is scary considering how long DOCSIS 2.0 has been out.
Wouldn't the cable modem just need a firmware upgrade if plugged into a DOCSIS 3.x system? IANACMT nor a field tech, so I could be way off.
Of course, to get DOCSIS 3.x or 2.x you have to have the infrastructure (e.g. lines, ISP hardware) to support it. But you do for FIOS, DSL, and other competing services too. So it really is only a difference between the modem device for the end user.
Unless it was to pick up a person of the opposite sex, why would I ever, ever want to go to someplace where it was noisy, crowded and the acoustics were awful? Especially when it is to hear - under the roar of the crowd - the same music I have already obtained?
Background music for places, dates, etc. People want entertainment and music has been one form that people have always desired. Some seek it to sooth the soul. There's a lot of reasons.
Of course, we also have to get away from the whole "blast out the crowd" mentality too. A lot of people like a lot of music - but most really don't want to have their ears blasted into oblivion to hear it.
Finally, someone gets it. Until the RIAA and co took over, that is exactly what music was, and is. They were trying to make it something it wasn't, which lasted for a while and is now failing. Time to get back with it and let music be what it really is.
A musician is paid for their service of performing the piece. Everything else in music (e.g. MP3s, etc.) is fair game for free trade, which in turn promotes the artist, which in turn drives performances. Break the cycle and the artists suffer.
I always ask myself when I see these questions where in the world the people asking them are. Over here in the SW I could right now leave my house and drive down to one of my local gamestops (there are 3) and buy a Wii, all three have them in stock (or at least had at the time Halo 3 came out when I last visited them). Best Buy has had them on the shelves since around April, Circuit City had them last time I went there (over the summer). There's no shortage of Wii's where I am, so I'm always curious that there's apparently still a shortage elsewhere...
At least in South Western Pennsylvania - they are typically out of stock. I've heard of one store (Circuit City) that might have them in stock, but everyone else in the town I am in is out. (I also refuse to go to Circuit City because of their stocking policies with respect to sales.)
Closer to Pittsburgh I did see a Target that had 'em in stock - 3 - but the other stores I visited in that area didn't have them. At the time I didn't have the spare cash for it, so we didn't get it then. Still waiting. Will buy one though.
I've played a Wii. Don't own one yet, but can't wait until I do. Regardless, I would not say that the Wii is selling due to hype at all. Every claim Nintendo made about it is coming true, and people are seeing it. That's not hype.
Additionally, the Wii is portable enough that people take it around places and show it to others, so then others taste it and then get in line to buy it too. (I've known I was going to get one when it was still called Revolution, but that is still the case for the average person.)
I just wonder what Wii sales will be like when they do get a big release out for it. If PS3/Xbox have to have a big release to get people to buy, and Wii doesn't - then that big release may make it all the bigger.
On the other hand, the Wii is going for a different market - one that isn't necessarily going to go out and buy the latest games. So it probably has a lower game sale threshold, but a greater market capacity - capacity that has yet to be filled. So even that lower threshold will probably be good competition for PS3/Xbox.
An EMP attack would kill off analogue TVs just as badly as it kills a digital one. A small signal transistor is a small signal transistor, whether it's being used in a digital circuit or analogue one. A severe voltage spike will still destroy the gate oxide.
It would still be easier to fix the analog TVs and replace their transistors. They also don't necessarily require a circuit to decode the signal - the raw data just has to be phased correctly into the CRT to show it.
Digital TVs would require complete replacement.
The only analogue TVs that would survive an EMP attack would be ancient valve sets - the really ancient ones, with no transistors at all. How many people still have functioning valve sets?
I think my parents 1970 b&w 13" Philips TV would. It still works perfectly fine and has outlasted several newer color TVs as well. They've had 4 or 5 TVs, and got this one from my grandparents after one of those broke back in the 1980's. They've since had at least one more that has died, and have one or two others as well. The only thing that will break the set is the conversion to digital.
TV will a blip in history between the 1930's and 2050's.
It probably will be, but not for the reason you think probably. YouTube has risen to prominence incredibly fast, and although the quality is poor, it points the way to the future. I'm already used to being able to search for any old dreck I feel like watching (within reason), and despite having lots of Freeview channels to choose from (I remember when it was just BBC1, BBC2 and ITV, and Channel 4 launching was a big deal- yeah, I'm old), I can easily go up and down the channels and find nothing I want to watch.
True - that is also part of the factor of it too.
Personally, I think within the next 50 years we'll see "TV" shows go from how they are now to how they are typically presented in Sci-Fi movies, etc - where we'll just say "I want to watch this, bring it up", and that will happen. Whether it is because we record everything ourselves as it comes on, or because we hook everything into one big, free show-cosmos-system I don't know. But I certainly think it is going that way.
When the analogue signals are turned off this will allow a power increase for the digital signals which then reduces digital signal reception problems.
Regardless of how much power you push, there will always be people within the viewing area that will get a degraded signal.
For instance - I currently live within 5 miles of two broadcasting stations. I get neither because of the terrain. Pumping up the signal will not fix that. I also get two other channels - one comes in clear (not sure where it is broadcast from) and the other goes in and out - likely terrain issues too. Pumping up the signal would work somewhat to clear up the channel, but not totally fix the issue.
Additionally you have other things that cause interference that degrade the signal too. And pumping up the signal will not fix those either. And I am not talking about the simple interference of broadcast bleeding - which, btw, is indicative of someone pumping up their signal too. Power lines and numerous other things cause interference and degrade signal.
The GP is correct. Analog was good in that if you got some signal you could possibly watch it, but it may not be the best. (You might have b&w instead of color, or crackly sound, but you can watch it.) With the Digital signals any amount of interference will corrupt the stream and you will lose all the content - it 100% or nothing.
Add to it how much an EMP attack would effect the two - analog would survive, digital would be toast - and there are other repercussions too.
Oh, and don't forget the DRM that MPAA, RIAA, NFL/NBA/NASCAR/etc, et. al wants added to it - so that they can control what you can and cannot record.
Yeah - digital TV is the doom of TV. At this rate, we'll be TV free by the time our grand kids (or great grand kids) come around. TV will a blip in history between the 1930's and 2050's.
These cards cost hundreds of dollars but they can't handle an assembly with 100 parts in a CAD model simply because they barely have any OpenGL hardware in them.
Because there's very little money there.
There is?
Last I was aware pretty much all non-Microsoft specific functionality for graphics was using OpenGL now, and the Linux Gaming market - which uses OpenGL - is a growing market too. Additionally, the CAD (AutoCAD, etc.) market is also a very ripe market for graphics, and a lucrative market too. (Not as a big a market in some respects, but certainly as lucrative, if not more so - AutoCAD doesn't have to re-invent itself for every release and cost millions to do so like a game does.)
Slashdot Mirror
Second, you have recharge time. As someone else pointed out, it takes only a few minutes to fill a tank with gas. Unfortunately, it would not be easy to provide the same kind of battery charge technology safely. So, the only real solution is to (a) do as you said, recharge in less than 1/2 hour - even an hour might suffice - so that people could recharge at night or between trips quickly, and (b) add a small combustion engine - I'm talking lawn mower size or smaller - that has enough power to recharge the batteries while the vehicle is in operation to full charge on a small amount of fuel (1 gallon or less). By combining these two together, you could effectively travel across country on a single tank of fuel (assuming the same size tank as current vehicles, which wouldn't happen - it'd more likely end up being a 2 to 5 gallon tank), or even go the entire life of the vehicle without using any gas (if you don't travel that far, or only go a charges worth a day).
Of course, here's another kicker - if you can recharge in under 1/2 hour, we could easily change over to full electrics. Why? Restaurants & hotels/motels/camp-grounds could install charge facilities - so you travel the battery's worth in the morning, stop have lunch & recharge, then do the same in the afternoon, stop have dinner & recharge, travel some more, stop at a hotel/motel/camp-ground for the night & recharge. You still need a 400 mile effective use out of the batteries, but it could bring a big boost to certain industries by giving people another reason to stop at them and spend more money there. It would also drive competition for providing electricity through the roof.
That said, as others have pointed out - you were successful because you made them responsible. Removing responsibility is not usually a good thing.
So, I'd recommend continue giving them the responsibility, and put ClamAV on the systems. Perhaps you can get the best of both worlds. (FYI - ClamAV was recently found to one of the top 3 AVs for detecting viruses.) This is also the path I take to my own home network.
The only reason to go beyond that is if your really worried about company info going out the wrong channels, which could happen - but if your employees are going to send it out via e-mail, then the people you'd be worried about would just as likely do it through their company e-mail account any way - or find another method if they are really intent on doing so. (They could even do so from home!)
Honestly - I wouldn't be able to either (a) do my job, or (b) do my job as efficiently if it weren't for a lot of the open source tools that I use. I also wouldn't be able to do the research and learn new tools that provide great productivity enhancements to my work and the projects I work on.
Furthermore, I wouldn't have been able to comply with other company policies. My company is very keen on version controlling stuff - stuff in general - and several projects I have been on did not provide a means (their method was simply copy the directory to a backup location, and name the copy a version, then move on) to do version control. I had to go out and get the tools myself - and we didn't have money to buy the tools either. So I installed Subversion, and have since become a Subversion admin and expert.
Sure, I could have probably have come to you for those downloads, but in a large organization (such as where I work) that really wouldn't work. Your solution doesn't scale as the company grows, and will eventually need to be replaced by something that does.
Additionally, your methods break my ability to keep systems I administer up to date and secure. The company put a firewall in place, similar to what you describe, and I was no longer able to get updates for my Gentoo server as a result - those authenticating firewalls typically have problems with Linux systems and work 50% to 75% of the time with the Windows systems they were designed to work with. So I went from being able to keep a system up-to-date and secure, to just keeping it running as is. (FYI - I chose Gentoo so that I could keep it up to date, and use the built in packaging system. IT managed to only break security. Oh - and I do have the paper work in to resolve it. It's been nearly 6 months, and no progress has been made. The system is still running, and still being used - but no updates.)
Thanks for foobar'ng your own network. I'm sure the crackers will love it.
So when you would have before VM's just had one system compromised, you now have N systems compromised - where N is the number of guest OS's running in the VM's. I'd say that's a lot less secure.
Today? Not likely, except may among small tribes that haven't touched modern civilization yet. But we wouldn't know about them any way...so...life will continue as normal.
Sure Task Manager won't kill it - it's a service. You have to go to Control Panel->Administrative Tools -> Services (or run "services.msc" - without the quotes), and then select "Net Logon" and tell it to 'stop'. (You'll have to be admin to do this.) It'll work, and if you set it to manual or disabled it won't restart again.
Now, it's not likely wise to do so, but if you really want to that's how. From the description (WinXP) it will likely only affect your ability to logon to domain/share resources.
Again, use this advice as your own risk. If you screw up your computer by doing it, don't blame me.
65,000 ft is roughly 12.31 miles.
Assuming that model years don't make too much difference, we'll use the current one from Ford's website, which according to the specs (under Capacity) has a 20 gallon tank.
Thus, we come to 12.31 miles per 20 gallons, which is roughly 0.61553 miler per gallon.
Of course, that is only taking the vertical distance into account. You might do a bit better by computing the horizontal distance too, but that requires knowing how fast the vehicle is moving horizontally, so that we can then compute the hypotenuse which the vehicle travels on, though it'd likely be more of a curve than a straight line - especially given the curvature of the earth, not to mention that the vertical speed is likely to be a lot higher than the horizontal speed, and the speedometer likely peaks at either 88 mph, 120 mph, 160 mph, or 180 mph - though 88 mph and 120 mph are the most likely.
Also, don't forget about the vehicular range - again, going back to the specs of the Taurus we'll take the upper limit of 28 miles per gallon, and with a 20 gallon tank, that gives us a range of 560 miles, assuming highway speed of likely 55 mph given this is an EPA rating. Now, given that you can still be running near speed at when the tank goes empty - you'll likely have a greater range but only by a few miles. Even then, that 560 miles is really optimistic (most vehicles only get 400 miles per tank last I observed, so the Taurus is doing really well at 560 miles).
So, you'll probably do better than 0.61553 miles per gallon, however, it isn't likely going to be all that good - and in either case, the vehicle is useless after the trip, and whatever fuel would have been left in the tank (assuming there is any).
Any how...I'll leave you to do the final steps if you wanted to figure out the maximum the vehicle could travel. Here's even a list of the needed equations (and then some). Just remember - start with 0 mph vertical velocity, factor in 0 to 55 mph horizontal velocity, total horizontal distance possible for the tank, and (if you didn't hit the ground yet) the horizontal distance the vehicles coasts as it bleeds off the last bit of its horizontal speed.
Oh, and if you really want to have some fun, you could calculate the size of the explosion when it hits the ground based on the remaining fuel (if any) in the tank.
(Yeah - I have nothing better to do right now.)
Of course, to get DOCSIS 3.x or 2.x you have to have the infrastructure (e.g. lines, ISP hardware) to support it. But you do for FIOS, DSL, and other competing services too. So it really is only a difference between the modem device for the end user.
Of course, we also have to get away from the whole "blast out the crowd" mentality too. A lot of people like a lot of music - but most really don't want to have their ears blasted into oblivion to hear it.
A musician is paid for their service of performing the piece. Everything else in music (e.g. MP3s, etc.) is fair game for free trade, which in turn promotes the artist, which in turn drives performances. Break the cycle and the artists suffer.
Closer to Pittsburgh I did see a Target that had 'em in stock - 3 - but the other stores I visited in that area didn't have them. At the time I didn't have the spare cash for it, so we didn't get it then. Still waiting. Will buy one though.
Additionally, the Wii is portable enough that people take it around places and show it to others, so then others taste it and then get in line to buy it too. (I've known I was going to get one when it was still called Revolution, but that is still the case for the average person.)
I just wonder what Wii sales will be like when they do get a big release out for it. If PS3/Xbox have to have a big release to get people to buy, and Wii doesn't - then that big release may make it all the bigger.
On the other hand, the Wii is going for a different market - one that isn't necessarily going to go out and buy the latest games. So it probably has a lower game sale threshold, but a greater market capacity - capacity that has yet to be filled. So even that lower threshold will probably be good competition for PS3/Xbox.
Digital TVs would require complete replacement. I think my parents 1970 b&w 13" Philips TV would. It still works perfectly fine and has outlasted several newer color TVs as well. They've had 4 or 5 TVs, and got this one from my grandparents after one of those broke back in the 1980's. They've since had at least one more that has died, and have one or two others as well. The only thing that will break the set is the conversion to digital.
Personally, I think within the next 50 years we'll see "TV" shows go from how they are now to how they are typically presented in Sci-Fi movies, etc - where we'll just say "I want to watch this, bring it up", and that will happen. Whether it is because we record everything ourselves as it comes on, or because we hook everything into one big, free show-cosmos-system I don't know. But I certainly think it is going that way.
For instance - I currently live within 5 miles of two broadcasting stations. I get neither because of the terrain. Pumping up the signal will not fix that. I also get two other channels - one comes in clear (not sure where it is broadcast from) and the other goes in and out - likely terrain issues too. Pumping up the signal would work somewhat to clear up the channel, but not totally fix the issue.
Additionally you have other things that cause interference that degrade the signal too. And pumping up the signal will not fix those either. And I am not talking about the simple interference of broadcast bleeding - which, btw, is indicative of someone pumping up their signal too. Power lines and numerous other things cause interference and degrade signal.
The GP is correct. Analog was good in that if you got some signal you could possibly watch it, but it may not be the best. (You might have b&w instead of color, or crackly sound, but you can watch it.) With the Digital signals any amount of interference will corrupt the stream and you will lose all the content - it 100% or nothing.
Add to it how much an EMP attack would effect the two - analog would survive, digital would be toast - and there are other repercussions too.
Oh, and don't forget the DRM that MPAA, RIAA, NFL/NBA/NASCAR/etc, et. al wants added to it - so that they can control what you can and cannot record.
Yeah - digital TV is the doom of TV. At this rate, we'll be TV free by the time our grand kids (or great grand kids) come around. TV will a blip in history between the 1930's and 2050's.
Last I was aware pretty much all non-Microsoft specific functionality for graphics was using OpenGL now, and the Linux Gaming market - which uses OpenGL - is a growing market too. Additionally, the CAD (AutoCAD, etc.) market is also a very ripe market for graphics, and a lucrative market too. (Not as a big a market in some respects, but certainly as lucrative, if not more so - AutoCAD doesn't have to re-invent itself for every release and cost millions to do so like a game does.)