I know its just a reference design but putting three fans, even two fans, on a video card is stupid. In all likelyhood, that more than doubles the failure rate vs a single fan cooling setup...
That's unlikely. It would require that fan failures make up much more than 50% of total failures (I'm too lazy to do the math, I'm guessing at least 66%) and it assumes that there is no redundancy - that when you lose one fan, the other two can't speed up and cover the air-flow requirements at a cost of increased fan noise.
I thought the first paragraph was interesting. Then I thought the second paragraph sounded foilhatty. Then I googled "rfid tires" and the first article is almost a decade old:
It isn't the tires per se, its the tire pressure monitoring systems which are mandatory - manfucturers have two choices, one that broadcasts a unique id to the world around you and one that just pays attention to each wheel's rotation speed to detect changes in diameter due to changes in pressure. TPMS security problems
Ok, I was a bit overzealous with the Apple comparison. But the fact of the matter is, I don't have blinders on, I've got capitalist glasses on. This response is being typed on a $600 cell phone, which by all rights should cost no more then $200, but we live in a capitalist society.
More blinders. An iphone 4 costs $350 unsubsidized and that includes apple's premium - rough equivalent, the samsung victory, is $250 unsubsidized. If you paid $600 you were paying premium pricing, probably for the privilege of getting the latest version right now rather than 18 months down the line.
The cost of a 3d printer could be driven down dramatically, but you will never get quality out of mass production.
Huh? That $600 phone you own? Mass produced, Just like the $250 previous generation version. Hell, mass-production improves quality. Limited runs means less field-testing and field-testing is what really shakes the bugs out of anything more complicated than a shirt -- so that rev 2, 3, 4, etc are more reliable and robust than a rev 1 limited run.
Doesn't reload the page here, just get the "working" thing at the bottom of the page and then it expands.
Ok, so not a total reload, but that part is loaded a second time. On the front page, the story summaries are all loaded when the page is loaded and the expansion just unhides what is already there - no waiting for a server round-trip (and it is a butt-slow round-trip even on a 100mbps fiber connection too).
No, but you STILL cannot buy a computer for the same price scale as the first Apple, Commodore, etc..
Huh? Apple II with basically no peripherals was $1,300 in 1977, that's $4,735 in 2013 dollars. Those systems were about 0.25 MIPS. For one tenth of what that cost, I can get a computer that is a couple of million times faster with all kinds of peripherals standard.
You've got your reasons for believing things will always be stuck where they are. I say you've got blinders on.
A better solution would be to be more aggressive with using Read the rest of this comment... thing.
If they can make the story summaries on the first place click-to-expand, they can do it for posts to. In fact, it kind of bugs me that "Read the rest of this comment" requires a page reload - they should just hide the way the do story summaries. They could probably even make the max length displayed a per-user configuration setting.
You might need to beef up the chamber over a regular hammer-forged barrel so that the chamber pressure doesn't give you an unexpected kaboom.
That touches on a key point here - right now everybody is focused on replicating current models of firearms. Those were designed with the available manufacturing technology in mind, they weren't designed to be built on a 3D printer. What we are likely to see are completely new weapon designs that are optimized for 3D printing.
Hell, maybe we won't even need metal - we'll probably see some sort of 3D printers that extrude carbon nanotubes and somebody will figure out how to build barrels out of that. We've already got 2D carbon-nanotube "inkjets" today.
Second of all, those home printers have gone from $500, to 750, to 900, to 1100, to 1500, to 1800, now to 2200-2500. They aren't getting cheaper.
Yes, 3D printers are going to get more expensive in the future because that's the way every technology has worked in the long term. That's why my laptop cost one meeellion dollairs!
By your logic, why isn't my battery powered by little fusion reactors by now.
I dunno, because we don't have any fusion reactors that operate at scale either?
Because when it blows up, it's going to rip your face apart.
If it is good for 100 shots and you only use it for 50, that is not going to be a problem. Tires can wear out and cause accidents that maim and kill, but that doesn't stop hundreds of millions of people from using them.
And you obviously haven't the foggiest idea as to how 'cheap' 3d printing really is
Really? Come on. We are not talking about today, we are talking about the point in the future when it does become cheap. Why are you so hung up on how things are rather than looking at how things will be?
No, the problem is that you don't understand Constitutional law.
ATF is not concerned, because it is literally no business of theirs. They have no authority to regulate guns manufactured by an individual for personal use.
So, how's that constitutional law working for shotguns that are "too short?" The right of the people to keep and bear long arms shall not be infringed?
You are so naive, you cite counter-examples in your own posts.
Laser sintering of metal parts is not, in any stretch, going to be cheap for a home printer to do.
And they said the world only needs 6 computers and no one would ever own a printing press in their own home. I mean come on - this isn't like time travel, all we need is refinement of the process to get a scale suitable for sale at wal-mart.
Additionally, laser sintering cannot produce the hardened metal needed for the upper receiver.
I'm willing to bet you can build all the parts strong enough for 50 shots no problem. That's more bullets than most criminals fire in a year.
We are talking about dirt cheap weapons here. They will be disposable. So what if they don't last? When it costs less than $5 to make a new one, who cares?
Spoken like someone who doesn't know squat about either firearms or the law.
Actually, I knew everything you wrote. The problem here is you have a lack of foresight.
The ATF has not been concerned with personally manufactured weapons for the very simple reason that very few people did it. If you think congress won't make printed weapons illegal and put that under the purview of the ATF, you are utterly naive.
As for the upper and the lower - you assume 3d printers are only about plastic. Think of plastic as inkjet printers and laser sintering of metal as laser printers. It took about 20 years for the price of laser printers to get to a couple of hundred bucks, but it did. 3D printing of metal parts will get there too.
Sure but until local idiots start downloading guns with one click and running them off on a standard peripheral, they won't worry. People with the ability to 3D print a gun can already make all sorts of weapons.
I believe that is the response the ATF should have made. The problem isn't longevity of the weapon - that is a weird-ass red-herring for them to throw out there. The problem is ease of access. Until 3D printers are as cheap and plentiful as ink-jet printers, they aren't a major risk for criminal usage.
However, when that day comes, the ATF is screwed. They will have no more luck at controlling distribution of printable weapons than the MAFIAA has had at controlling distribution of movies and music.
On the other hand those offices and corporations wouldn't have a single spot to send all their lobbyists too any more.
The lobbyists will just start teleconferencing too. They will probably pass a law to make illegal to record any of those sessions and we'll be back to square one.
Lobbying just has such a huge ROI that a little change in physical distribution of the targets will be nothing more than the most minor of speedbumps
And even if they all comply with your opt-out request, it doesn't mean that they'll stop collecting data on you, only that they'll stop serving you targeted ads."
That line is the most important part of the story. The phrase "opt out" has been redefined by the marketers. You can not opt out of being tracked, you can only opt out of being reminded that you are being tracked. That is more than useless because it defuses the people most likely to be unhappy about these trackers with a false sense of safety.
Your only way to avoid being tracked is not to ever talk to the trackers in the first place. For the less technically inclined, the Ghostery plugin for firefox is pretty much set it and forget it. If you can handle looking underneath the hood of the internet, check out Request Policy which gives you extremely fine grained control over what stuff a webpage can pull in from other webservers. I default block all cross-site includes from other domains and white-list them on an individual basis and it really isn't too inconvenient. Besides the privacy benefits, it makes web pages load super fast when they don't have to pull in crap from 15 other servers.
For me, the benefit is more about exercising control over what the mechant bills me. The anti-fraud stuff is secondary. These disposable numbers give me the safety of mind that the merchant won't be charging more than I want, be it through error or one of those bogus reocurring charge things.
For example, I purchased a year long subscription to Consumer Reports because I wanted to look up some of their reviews for a couple of big purchases I intended to make last year. Their billing model is to automatically charge you for a renewal. I gave them a disposable number good for just one year's worth of subscription so that I didn't have to worry about them auto-renewing me when I wasn't paying attention and then having to fight it out to undo the charge. So now insterad of auto-billing me, they've sent me a couple of emails complaining that their system could not bill me. Makes me smile that I turned the tables on them. (as an aside, I think Consumer Reports has lost their way, adopting some really anti-consumer business practices - auto renewal and littering their website with identity trackers)
There are other ways to do the same, like using a cash card bought at the local convenience store. For me, disposable numbers are just the most convenient way to exercise that control.
All banks and credit card companies have to do to kill PayPall forever is bring their transaction security model out of the 19th century.
What's worse is that they already have exactly that security model. Visa bought Orbiscom a few years ago. Orbiscom is the creater of "disposable" credit card numbers. You log into their system, specify a maximum limit and an expiration date and they generate a credit card number for you that is linked to your primary account. After a merchant charges that number it "binds" to them so that no ther merchants can charge it. Once the credit limit or expiration date is hit, the number stops working completely.
Only a handful of banks use this - Bonk of America is probably the biggest one, they call it "shopsafe." But the only reason they use it is that they inherited it when they bought MBNA. I've been using Shopsafe for nearly 15 years now for all of my online purchases and I've never had a problem. MBNA used to advertise that they never had even a single case of fraud with ShopSafe, I don't know if that's changed or if BoA is too stupid to continue advertising it that way.
Also, make it so the buttons are randomly positioned in the dialog. People can automatically click through a dialog but randomizing the buttons will make it not automatic.
I am afraid you didn't understand my intent. There is no value in trying to being punitive here. This is not about punishing pirates, it is about encouraging the people who want to pay and not wasting any resources on the people who do not want to pay. Randomizing the buttons won't even faze the hardcore pirates, but it might annoy a paying customer. Sure, it is a small chance, but even one lost sale is still a lost sale, so why bother putting in extra work just to increase that risk?
You know what is weird? That you decided to quote me out of context to make it seem like I was saying something totally unrelated to what I really said. And then you have a little tirade about this thing that was only in your head. It is particularly weird because my original words are still right there. No one is fooled by your partial quote.
Why did you do that? What did you hope to accomplish? Are you just hurting so bad inside that you felt like you had to lash out at some random stranger on the internet so you made up a reason to do it?
This feels a lot like history might be repeating itself here.
Anyone remember the ill-fated CrunchPad? Public announcement preceded that of the ipad, but for a bunch of reasons it never amounted to much while the Ipad took off and even Apple's competitors did better than how the crunchpad ended up.
Now we have the Pebble Watch which actually did make it to market (despite many unforseen delays) before the iwatch and other competitors (I think sony has a crappy smartwatch, but it is crappy). Even so it is immature with only modest software functionality at the moment.
Meanwhile all the chatter gives the impression Apple and others have got their own versions coming real soon now. Maybe its just FUD to scare people into wait-and-see on Pebble instead of going out and buying one right now. Or maybe there really is something good right around the corner that will clobber Pebble.
Slashdot Mirror
Patent trolls take note - 40 year old prior art.
I know its just a reference design but putting three fans, even two fans, on a video card is stupid. In all likelyhood, that more than doubles the failure rate vs a single fan cooling setup...
That's unlikely. It would require that fan failures make up much more than 50% of total failures (I'm too lazy to do the math, I'm guessing at least 66%) and it assumes that there is no redundancy - that when you lose one fan, the other two can't speed up and cover the air-flow requirements at a cost of increased fan noise.
I'm curious as to why you choose to get involved in controversial patent licensing, rather than, say, Bill Gates style philanthropic work ?
He's doing God's Work.
I thought the first paragraph was interesting. Then I thought the second paragraph sounded foilhatty. Then I googled "rfid tires" and the first article is almost a decade old:
It isn't the tires per se, its the tire pressure monitoring systems which are mandatory - manfucturers have two choices, one that broadcasts a unique id to the world around you and one that just pays attention to each wheel's rotation speed to detect changes in diameter due to changes in pressure.
TPMS security problems
Ok, I was a bit overzealous with the Apple comparison. But the fact of the matter is, I don't have blinders on, I've got capitalist glasses on. This response is being typed on a $600 cell phone, which by all rights should cost no more then $200, but we live in a capitalist society.
More blinders. An iphone 4 costs $350 unsubsidized and that includes apple's premium - rough equivalent, the samsung victory, is $250 unsubsidized. If you paid $600 you were paying premium pricing, probably for the privilege of getting the latest version right now rather than 18 months down the line.
The cost of a 3d printer could be driven down dramatically, but you will never get quality out of mass production.
Huh? That $600 phone you own? Mass produced, Just like the $250 previous generation version. Hell, mass-production improves quality. Limited runs means less field-testing and field-testing is what really shakes the bugs out of anything more complicated than a shirt -- so that rev 2, 3, 4, etc are more reliable and robust than a rev 1 limited run.
Doesn't reload the page here, just get the "working" thing at the bottom of the page and then it expands.
Ok, so not a total reload, but that part is loaded a second time. On the front page, the story summaries are all loaded when the page is loaded and the expansion just unhides what is already there - no waiting for a server round-trip (and it is a butt-slow round-trip even on a 100mbps fiber connection too).
No, but you STILL cannot buy a computer for the same price scale as the first Apple, Commodore, etc..
Huh? Apple II with basically no peripherals was $1,300 in 1977, that's $4,735 in 2013 dollars. Those systems were about 0.25 MIPS. For one tenth of what that cost, I can get a computer that is a couple of million times faster with all kinds of peripherals standard.
You've got your reasons for believing things will always be stuck where they are. I say you've got blinders on.
A better solution would be to be more aggressive with using Read the rest of this comment... thing.
If they can make the story summaries on the first place click-to-expand, they can do it for posts to. In fact, it kind of bugs me that "Read the rest of this comment" requires a page reload - they should just hide the way the do story summaries. They could probably even make the max length displayed a per-user configuration setting.
You might need to beef up the chamber over a regular hammer-forged barrel so that the chamber pressure doesn't give you an unexpected kaboom.
That touches on a key point here - right now everybody is focused on replicating current models of firearms. Those were designed with the available manufacturing technology in mind, they weren't designed to be built on a 3D printer. What we are likely to see are completely new weapon designs that are optimized for 3D printing.
Hell, maybe we won't even need metal - we'll probably see some sort of 3D printers that extrude carbon nanotubes and somebody will figure out how to build barrels out of that. We've already got 2D carbon-nanotube "inkjets" today.
Second of all, those home printers have gone from $500, to 750, to 900, to 1100, to 1500, to 1800, now to 2200-2500. They aren't getting cheaper.
Yes, 3D printers are going to get more expensive in the future because that's the way every technology has worked in the long term.
That's why my laptop cost one meeellion dollairs!
By your logic, why isn't my battery powered by little fusion reactors by now.
I dunno, because we don't have any fusion reactors that operate at scale either?
Most current Federal gun laws are unconstitutiona
I repeat, how's that constitutional law working out?
Because when it blows up, it's going to rip your face apart.
If it is good for 100 shots and you only use it for 50, that is not going to be a problem. Tires can wear out and cause accidents that maim and kill, but that doesn't stop hundreds of millions of people from using them.
And you obviously haven't the foggiest idea as to how 'cheap' 3d printing really is
Really? Come on. We are not talking about today, we are talking about the point in the future when it does become cheap. Why are you so hung up on how things are rather than looking at how things will be?
No, the problem is that you don't understand Constitutional law.
ATF is not concerned, because it is literally no business of theirs. They have no authority to regulate guns manufactured by an individual for personal use.
So, how's that constitutional law working for shotguns that are "too short?"
The right of the people to keep and bear long arms shall not be infringed?
You are so naive, you cite counter-examples in your own posts.
Laser sintering of metal parts is not, in any stretch, going to be cheap for a home printer to do.
And they said the world only needs 6 computers and no one would ever own a printing press in their own home. I mean come on - this isn't like time travel, all we need is refinement of the process to get a scale suitable for sale at wal-mart.
Additionally, laser sintering cannot produce the hardened metal needed for the upper receiver.
I'm willing to bet you can build all the parts strong enough for 50 shots no problem. That's more bullets than most criminals fire in a year.
We are talking about dirt cheap weapons here. They will be disposable. So what if they don't last? When it costs less than $5 to make a new one, who cares?
Spoken like someone who doesn't know squat about either firearms or the law.
Actually, I knew everything you wrote. The problem here is you have a lack of foresight.
The ATF has not been concerned with personally manufactured weapons for the very simple reason that very few people did it. If you think congress won't make printed weapons illegal and put that under the purview of the ATF, you are utterly naive.
As for the upper and the lower - you assume 3d printers are only about plastic. Think of plastic as inkjet printers and laser sintering of metal as laser printers. It took about 20 years for the price of laser printers to get to a couple of hundred bucks, but it did. 3D printing of metal parts will get there too.
Sure but until local idiots start downloading guns with one click and running them off on a standard peripheral, they won't worry. People with the ability to 3D print a gun can already make all sorts of weapons.
I believe that is the response the ATF should have made. The problem isn't longevity of the weapon - that is a weird-ass red-herring for them to throw out there. The problem is ease of access. Until 3D printers are as cheap and plentiful as ink-jet printers, they aren't a major risk for criminal usage.
However, when that day comes, the ATF is screwed. They will have no more luck at controlling distribution of printable weapons than the MAFIAA has had at controlling distribution of movies and music.
On the other hand those offices and corporations wouldn't have a single spot to send all their lobbyists too any more.
The lobbyists will just start teleconferencing too. They will probably pass a law to make illegal to record any of those sessions and we'll be back to square one.
Lobbying just has such a huge ROI that a little change in physical distribution of the targets will be nothing more than the most minor of speedbumps
And even if they all comply with your opt-out request, it doesn't mean that they'll stop collecting data on you, only that they'll stop serving you targeted ads."
That line is the most important part of the story. The phrase "opt out" has been redefined by the marketers. You can not opt out of being tracked, you can only opt out of being reminded that you are being tracked. That is more than useless because it defuses the people most likely to be unhappy about these trackers with a false sense of safety.
Your only way to avoid being tracked is not to ever talk to the trackers in the first place. For the less technically inclined, the Ghostery plugin for firefox is pretty much set it and forget it. If you can handle looking underneath the hood of the internet, check out Request Policy which gives you extremely fine grained control over what stuff a webpage can pull in from other webservers. I default block all cross-site includes from other domains and white-list them on an individual basis and it really isn't too inconvenient. Besides the privacy benefits, it makes web pages load super fast when they don't have to pull in crap from 15 other servers.
For me, the benefit is more about exercising control over what the mechant bills me. The anti-fraud stuff is secondary. These disposable numbers give me the safety of mind that the merchant won't be charging more than I want, be it through error or one of those bogus reocurring charge things.
For example, I purchased a year long subscription to Consumer Reports because I wanted to look up some of their reviews for a couple of big purchases I intended to make last year. Their billing model is to automatically charge you for a renewal. I gave them a disposable number good for just one year's worth of subscription so that I didn't have to worry about them auto-renewing me when I wasn't paying attention and then having to fight it out to undo the charge. So now insterad of auto-billing me, they've sent me a couple of emails complaining that their system could not bill me. Makes me smile that I turned the tables on them. (as an aside, I think Consumer Reports has lost their way, adopting some really anti-consumer business practices - auto renewal and littering their website with identity trackers)
There are other ways to do the same, like using a cash card bought at the local convenience store. For me, disposable numbers are just the most convenient way to exercise that control.
All banks and credit card companies have to do to kill PayPall forever is bring their transaction security model out of the 19th century.
What's worse is that they already have exactly that security model. Visa bought Orbiscom a few years ago. Orbiscom is the creater of "disposable" credit card numbers. You log into their system, specify a maximum limit and an expiration date and they generate a credit card number for you that is linked to your primary account. After a merchant charges that number it "binds" to them so that no ther merchants can charge it. Once the credit limit or expiration date is hit, the number stops working completely.
Only a handful of banks use this - Bonk of America is probably the biggest one, they call it "shopsafe." But the only reason they use it is that they inherited it when they bought MBNA. I've been using Shopsafe for nearly 15 years now for all of my online purchases and I've never had a problem. MBNA used to advertise that they never had even a single case of fraud with ShopSafe, I don't know if that's changed or if BoA is too stupid to continue advertising it that way.
You can tell when a coward ignores history.
Please read a book, not one by chomsky.
How about Catcher in the Rye?
A standardised DRM means everyone will use it.
In no way do I support the idea of DRM in the HTML5 standard.
But... There is an upside to having everyone standardize on one form of DRM -- once it is cracked it is cracked for everything
I don't think that comes anywhere near balancing out the societal costs of ubiquitous DRM, but it ain't completely bad.
Also, make it so the buttons are randomly positioned in the dialog. People can automatically click through a dialog but randomizing the buttons will make it not automatic.
I am afraid you didn't understand my intent. There is no value in trying to being punitive here. This is not about punishing pirates, it is about encouraging the people who want to pay and not wasting any resources on the people who do not want to pay. Randomizing the buttons won't even faze the hardcore pirates, but it might annoy a paying customer. Sure, it is a small chance, but even one lost sale is still a lost sale, so why bother putting in extra work just to increase that risk?
You know what is weird? That you decided to quote me out of context to make it seem like I was saying something totally unrelated to what I really said. And then you have a little tirade about this thing that was only in your head. It is particularly weird because my original words are still right there. No one is fooled by your partial quote.
Why did you do that? What did you hope to accomplish? Are you just hurting so bad inside that you felt like you had to lash out at some random stranger on the internet so you made up a reason to do it?
This feels a lot like history might be repeating itself here.
Anyone remember the ill-fated CrunchPad? Public announcement preceded that of the ipad, but for a bunch of reasons it never amounted to much while the Ipad took off and even Apple's competitors did better than how the crunchpad ended up.
Now we have the Pebble Watch which actually did make it to market (despite many unforseen delays) before the iwatch and other competitors (I think sony has a crappy smartwatch, but it is crappy). Even so it is immature with only modest software functionality at the moment.
Meanwhile all the chatter gives the impression Apple and others have got their own versions coming real soon now. Maybe its just FUD to scare people into wait-and-see on Pebble instead of going out and buying one right now. Or maybe there really is something good right around the corner that will clobber Pebble.