Well, the "mass" of the atmosphere has little to do with RF transfer efficiencies...though passing through the ionosphere certainly does. The 54% comes about due to very real limits on the efficiency of converting electricity to RF and back again. You can sort of consider that the upper bound of what can be expected from a satellite-based system. When it's all said and done, in order to deliver 200MW of regulated 60Hz to the grid is going to require them to generate roughly 600MW at the satellite panels assuming they can get roughly 50% efficiency through the beam (which is likely quite a stretch). And yes, I realize the amount of time spent in shadow is very small..hence why I went out of my way to "size" the earth-bound solar concentrator system to be twice the power rating so it was an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you liked the billions of dollars over-budget presidential helicopter, the bridge to no-where in Alaska, and other such amazing government programs..then sure...this is a great way to spend our tax dollars. Luckily, we actually have a Secretary of DOE who has a clue for a change...so we won't have to witness that.
If/when launch technology becomes "near-free" to at least low-earth orbit...then something like this might be feasible. A project such as this is sort of putting the cart before the horse. Dollar-for-dollar you are going to get a *lot* more power out of a terrestrial PV system in the proper geography than this proposed space-based system, never mind solar concentrator systems. At a 3:1 ratio just in panel area needed (which more than compensates for the additional solar incidence in orbit plus the 24-hour exposure), that puts a lot of PV on people's rooftops for the same money before even considering the cost of the launch or the ongoing expenses of maintaining the ground-based receiver station and the associated gear.
If the economics are/were actually there..I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, as an engineer who has a lot of background in such things...I just gotta shake my head for now. Once every rooftop has a PV system and solar water heater that can benefit from it, once we have developed solar concentrator facilities on all the eligible areas that we can, once we have fully exploited our wind corridors (both inland and off-shore) and once we have developed our geothermal and tidal resources....THEN talk to me about space-based systems if we need more juice. It's all about grabbing the low-hanging fruit first...not doing the most expensive option just because it's technically possible.
With the RF frequencies they are saying that they plan on using..it's really not the issue. This isn't some super-concentrated laser beam. This is going to be like a suped-up satellite TV broadcast rather than microwave-based transmission beams that have been touted in other proposals. So again, "can we hit the spot" isn't the issue here (that's a given, since we're trying to "hit" a target the size of a small city with a beam of similar size) but rather if it's economical to try and do so. With the transmission losses, the cost of launch, the sheer cost of the PV panel itself, etc...I'm not holding my breath.
Even if the beam "misses", those nearby will, at worst, have an RF exposure similar to living near a TV broadcast tower. Not something you'd necessarily *encourage* but not something to freak out about, either.
The point is not "can we hit a spot" on the earth..it's with what efficiency can the energy be moved from orbit to said spot. Best results I've seen recently point to about 54% efficiency between terrestrial towers. Not good enough, and definitely not worth the expense (still going to need a bunch of land for the receivers as well as factoring in launch costs) and potential downside to having a multi-megawatt RF interference generator sitting above North America.
And in the end..that's the difference between scientists (your prof) and engineers...scientists discover what can be done...engineers discover what can be done on a budget. But like I said in another post..if a bunch of VC's want to watch their money burn on this project...they're welcome to it. Just so long as taxpayer money doesn't join the "fun".
...otherwise kiss radio astronomy in North America goodbye. Those guys thought they were getting interference from the Iridium constellation? Heh..wait until they get 200MW of broadband RF interference coming down on them from this monstrosity.
Not to mention, this seems to be a complete waste of resources. I'd wager that at least as much land (if not more) will need to be dedicated to the antenna array as a 400MW (put in twice the power to make up for day-only operations) solar concentrator plant if they want any sort of chance of capturing all of the beam for conversion. Add to that the fact that the increased solar incidence in orbit will be conteracted by the losses in RF transmission (engineers were thrilled when they achieved 54% between ground towers recently...). And lets not forget the rather substantial launch costs (likely hundreds of millions of dollars). All in all...this is a concept best suited to the Sims game than real life. I'm all for alternative/renwewable energy...but this is just a waste of time and money. But hey..if some VC's like watching stacks of hundred-dollar-bills burn in the mean time...more power to them. I just hope this idiotic scheme doesn't get any federal funding. Our DOE Secretary is a pretty sharp guy...I'm sure he sees the folly in it as well and hopefully will steer well clear of it. I would think the FCC would have something to say as well..considering the MASSIVE potential for RF interference. Investment tip: I wouldn't be sinking any retirement money into this outfit;)
I agree that MUDs were a stretch...but there *were* 3-d muds (can move compass rose as well up/down), just without a corresponding 3d rendering engine (although they are available these days). The patent goes into some detail regarding chat server functionality and message passing..which *was* present in MUDs. Again..a stretch..I was just throwing that out there.
EQ had screenshots released from its alpha as early as Jan 2007. It's not much of a stretch to think it was in development earlier than the 1996 filing of the "parent" patent...so I think they're sunk:D UO was even earlier..though it might not have implemented the server-side positional occlusion stuff..I don't know enough about its architecture to comment definitively though it's certainly worth investigating by ncsoft. Ditto Meridian 59. Guess we'll have to wait and see:)
Not only that...but the architecture detailed in the patent seems pretty specific...it's going to be tough, IMHO, to prove infringement. Not only that, but the latest environment for invalidating software patents in general can't be good for world.com.
It all depends on how you interpret some of the claims in the patent. While it does appear to mean a 3-d rendered world on the client...some of the claims are completely server-oriented. And yes, even text-based MUDs can (and were) 3-D at the server level having an ability to travel along compass rose points as well as climb/descend vertically. It's a stretch..but that's what a good lawyer does;)
That said..obviously games like EQ will be the biggest obstacle in the prior-art argument. The continuation patent application is problematic..I haven't studied the original 1996 patent in sufficient detail to see if all of the claims THERE are applicable to the claims related to EQ et al in the 2000 patent. And again, the details in the 1996 patent go into such excrutiating minutia it's likely that any broadening of the patent claims ex post facto in the 2000 patent might very well be overturned. IANAL and all that..but I think they've got an uphill battle if they want to take on a Sony or Blizzard.
Under this system, who gets the money if I live in Oregon, but I drive north to Colorado to go skiiing?
Would
Exxon probably..since that'd be a 25,000 mile trip or thereabouts:p
Joking aside...you make a good point. The tracking would have to be more sophisticated than a simple mileage accumulator that happened to use gps as a source. It would have to keep real-time tabs on your position so that it could filter out "out of bounds" travel from its calculation. If it's keeping real-time tabs...who's watching/collecting this data? This has abuse written all over it. I'll make Mr. Governor a deal...if he publishes the full contents of his email, phone records, and credit card purchases, and full gps tracking data of his vehicle(s) on the state website (personal and state-business)...then *perhaps* a quid-pro-quo style of invasion of privacy could be contemplated. Until then...he can respectfully fuck off.
Filed in 2000? Um...shouldn't be too hard to show prior art to overturn it if the patent indeed is applicable to operating MMOs. UO and EQ for sure...probably even text-based MUDs.
I would imagine to verify that the person entering the country on a green card is the same person who applied for (and was granted) the green card is the motivation. The prints *are* digitized...and that's the point to compare the digitized ones on file with the ones you present at the point of entry. However, since it should be fairly easy to verify one's identity at the Point of Entry via the picture that (should) pop up on the CBP officer's screen when the green card is swiped...I'm not sure I understand the benefit of this new initiative fully, either. I would imagine that it's easier to fake a set of finger prints (via latex glue-ons) than it is to fake your face to another human under fairly intense scrutiny in person...but what do I know (besides the honorary immigration law degree bestowed upon anyone who has successfully navigated the system to LPR status LOL)? In the end...it might not actually help security but I suppose it can't hurt to have another layer of verification.
And to those crying about privacy yadda yadda...this system is for entry into the country. Nothing about being a permanent resident says anything about being able to waltz through a point of entry without inspection and/or scrutiny. Don't want to be fingerprinted (again..as parent post points out)..don't cross the international borders;) Let me know when this program is rolled out to cross state borders and/or get on a domestic flight..then I'll join in on the chorus of outcry.
A Farad is similar to Amps..useless for comparing actual energy or power without the corresponding voltage involved. In (over)simple terms it describes the number of electrons being stored for later release...similar to the relationship to volume to a liquid in some arbitrary container. And similarly, asking how much work can be done with 1 gallon of water is as useless as asking how much work (ie kWh) can be stored in a 3000F (or 30,000F) capacitor. Without knowing the pressure (ie voltage), it is indeterminate.
your AA battery (and thus ultimately the 3000F capacitor it is connected to) stores 1.5V of potential. The EEStor ultracap claims to store 3500V. For every coulomb of charge, the eestore device is storing about 2300 times as much energy (kwh) as the 3000F capacitor in your example. There's the difference;)
"If you need liquid nitrogen to boost it to 6 GHz, it's not all that interesting. Nehalem 2.66 GHz offering has also been shown to overclock to 4 GHz on air cooling, and some people have got the 3.2 GHz offering up to 4.5 GHz on air. On GHz they're roughly the same, possibly with a slight Intel edge."
Show me an Intel chip that doesn't require LN2 to reach 6Ghz, and I'll agree with you that it's not interesting. The fact that they've been able to at least match an intel offering is very interesting to me, personally...given the 2 years of having their asses handed to them by the wakened Intel giant.
"I thought both companies were ditching the GHz war and fighting for actual performance supremacy? What's with the silly "my GHz is bigger than yours" competition? Do we have PPW numbers, or just press releases that mean nothing?"
Well, back in the day of the P4 versus Athlon...you might have had a point since there was such a huge gulf between the two architectures in instructions per cycle (IPC). These days, the IPC is much closer so Ghz is a decent (though not perfect) measuring stick for coarse comparisons. Obviously, the most important metric is a set of benchmarks on the application that YOU are interested in..but as a first cut Ghz will do these days (it's the closest we've had to an apples-to-apples since the old k5/PIII days). Others have already talked about how reaching the "max freq", on air and cryo-cooled is more of a testament to the engineering soundness of the design, and not necessarily indicative of the consumer-level performance to be expected. Again..benches (and the PPW numbers you cited) are where the real action is at, but it's hard to fit a full set of benches on a shelf tag so Ghz still has its place in marketing. For the first time in a while, the Ghz comparisons actually have some meaning, so enjoy the brief window of sanity in number comparisons between the two camps.
Sure, 500x might be plausible if the radiation was actually there to collect. Just the raw solar irradiance, across all wavelengths, doesn't allow for such a dramatic increase in real-world improvements because the energy just isn't there. If we can capture 40% now with the very best cells (which is calculated based on that same value for solar irradiance across all wavelengths), the most we can hope for is 100%, right? That's a far cry from 500x gain. Perhaps the author of the original article meant a 500% gain? That's plausible when compared to mainstream PV cells on the market.
It uses public-key encryption...so presumably it carries around the "public" portion of the key pair that is used to encrypt the files. The black-mailer has the private portion that is sold to the victim.
Yes, I read it, but it seems you didn't comprehend it. You need energy to perform electrolysis, which in turn releases hydrogen. If the car is powered by hydrogen, and you propose extracting it on the go via electrolysis, where is the power for the electrolysis coming from? Unless you get more energy out of the hydrogen powered engine per unit of hydrogen, then it takes to extract that hydrogen via electrolysis, then it won't work, you have an energy deficit in the system. That was my point, but you totally missed it. And you don't seem to comprehend it either. Nowhere in TFA does it say that the hydrogen would be made "on the go". You apparently inferred that from the statement "Our nanoparticle-coated electrodes make electrolysers efficient enough to provide hydrogen on demand from a tank of distilled water in your car.", meaning the electrolysers would be integrated into the car itself and not external. Energy would be supplied from an external source (ie your house). The advantage to this approach over, say, a battery bank connected to said external electrical source is that the energy density of hydrogen is several orders of magnitude larger than any chemical battery technology that we currently have today on a J/kg basis. As has been pointed out, the storage of the hydrogen which is notoriously difficult to keep contained (and to some extent, the energy losses associated with compression of the hydrogen) could significantly reduce the total energy efficiency in a closed-loop analysis...though that's an area where improving technology can make in impact.
I don't have much of a different view than you...I just use the correct terminology. You call command and control signals "phoning home". They are not for that purpose. Can they be abused? Sure they can. So can any piece of technology. Should we move away to some log cabin in the mountains lest we be exposed to the *possibility* of someone abusing a piece of technology? You seem to lean towards "yes". I lean towards "no" with the ability to tolerate the small amount of risk that the technology will be abused as you say. It doesn't mean that I necessarily trust the cable companies to have a conscience...rather that I am familiar enough with the technology to realize that there are so many fingers in this proverbial pie that having a massive breach of privacy as you are afraid of would necessitate a massive conspiracy amongst a great number of companies (any one of which could blow the whole thing with a single anonymous phonecall to the press)...one that would be near impossible to keep secret for long. Therefore, it is basically a self-correcting problem for the most part. Hell, even the NSA couldn't keep it's most highly classified project with the telecoms secret for long.
While my observations might be insulting to you, I don't feel embarrassed in the least for pointing out fallacies in your arguments...but thanks for your concern.
Depends on where you live I suppose;) I'm sure Comcast will focus their rollout in those markets that are currently being served by FiOS internet or are on the verge of being served. That's several million households so far...pretty decent chunk of market in its own right.
However the rollout of this new technology has always been slow to nonexistent. What guarantee do we have that Comcast will roll out DOCSIS 3.0 over any kind of reasonable timespan? While I can't point to a *guarantee* in the traditional sense...I *can* point to a major motivation on Comcast's part to make sure they get this out the door quickly: FiOS.
Um, as I said...this is no different than current digital cable boxes. If you have a problem with 2-way communication, then you shouldn't have digital cable..period. Stick with OTA TV via a pair of rabbit ears. Better stay off the internet too...if you don't think your viewing habits are being monitored/dissected by a number of interested parties, you are fooling yourself.
Appreciate the "attack" or not...you don't get it.
And yes, I know what my computers are running...thanks.
Yeah, I wanted OTA quality...and some friggin content. The box is just that: a box. You've made the assertion (based on this thread that you've chosen to become involved with) that you don't want a DVR since between VOD and netflix (don't need no stinkin' linear programming from the cable company)...you have all the content you need. From the link you provided:
"Works with popular DVR software:
* Pause, rewind, fast-forward live TV.
* Record all your favorite TV shows by name.
* Integrated TV guide (provided by the DVR software). "
Well well well...now we're relying on linear content after all.
As for the bidirectional communication angle: In case you haven't noticed, over-the-air OTA and unencrypted QAM make up a fairly insignificant portion of what is available in the typical digital cable system when one signs up for various premium tiers...and it will dwindle as a fraction more and more as SDV is rolled out and nearly all programming save a few basic channels plus the local broadcast channels are moved to the switched architecture which requires 2-way communication to view.
Wake me up when that box can record 100% of the content offered in the MLB Extra Innings, the ESPN GamePlan, MLS Direct Kick, NBA League Pass, and NHL Center Ice premium sports packages just to look at sports programming. How about all the Discovery Channel HD sub-channels? Etc Etc. Didn't think so either.
But thanks for making my point for me. I'd mod you up +1 for "helpful to LabRat's cause" if I could.
really? How many recent sporting events are available from Netflix? All of the college and professional football games that I care about are on my DVR until I watch and/or delete them. Show me equivalent *legal* sources of such content available *right now* in full OTA-quality HD. Didn't think so.
Without the 2-way communication, the cablecard doesn't allow you to access VOD, SDV, etc as you snarkily surmise. Ditto the clear QAM tuners included in recent tv's and dvr's. In addition..yes VOD is probably the "way of the future"..but you'd be hard-pressed to find the variety in any provider's VOD selection that matches what can be found across the breadth of their linear programming that can be recorded. If you ONLY watch recent movies..then you are probably set. But there are many, many magnitudes more hours of content that is available in linear programming that is currently unavailable in VOD format (most sporting events, niche documentaries, etc etc).
It's obvious you don't grasp how modern digital cable works. This isn't about "phoning home". This is about being able to send command/control signals to the head-end equipment in order to access dynamically provisioned resources. Just as your web browser isn't "phoning home" when you open a TCP connection to slashdot in order to request the index page. Such dynamic resources include Switched Digital Video (sort of like multicast in the IP world..but not quite as granular), VOD, PPV, etc. Yes, it's true that all of those services can be accessed today without 2-way communication capabilities (formally konwn as OCAP, now I guess re-branded to "Tru2Way")..but they required you to rent a converter box from the cable company. Including this functionality into consumer electronics will eliminate the need to rent a second piece of hardware from the cable company...though if you just really like the idea of being charged $10/month or whatever for no good reason other than to have the privilege of having their official box and green LED clock on top of your A/V stack, I'm sure the cable company will be happy to accommodate you. If you are worried about your cable system monitoring your viewing habits, I sure hope you don't have a digital converter box;)
it's not that the parts got "stronger"..it's that the frame didn't weaken over time like a standard aluminum frame of "normal planes" because of the heating-cooling cycle was effectively an annealing process which prevented cracks from forming and propagating.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the "mass" of the atmosphere has little to do with RF transfer efficiencies...though passing through the ionosphere certainly does. The 54% comes about due to very real limits on the efficiency of converting electricity to RF and back again. You can sort of consider that the upper bound of what can be expected from a satellite-based system. When it's all said and done, in order to deliver 200MW of regulated 60Hz to the grid is going to require them to generate roughly 600MW at the satellite panels assuming they can get roughly 50% efficiency through the beam (which is likely quite a stretch). And yes, I realize the amount of time spent in shadow is very small..hence why I went out of my way to "size" the earth-bound solar concentrator system to be twice the power rating so it was an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you liked the billions of dollars over-budget presidential helicopter, the bridge to no-where in Alaska, and other such amazing government programs..then sure...this is a great way to spend our tax dollars. Luckily, we actually have a Secretary of DOE who has a clue for a change...so we won't have to witness that.
If/when launch technology becomes "near-free" to at least low-earth orbit...then something like this might be feasible. A project such as this is sort of putting the cart before the horse. Dollar-for-dollar you are going to get a *lot* more power out of a terrestrial PV system in the proper geography than this proposed space-based system, never mind solar concentrator systems. At a 3:1 ratio just in panel area needed (which more than compensates for the additional solar incidence in orbit plus the 24-hour exposure), that puts a lot of PV on people's rooftops for the same money before even considering the cost of the launch or the ongoing expenses of maintaining the ground-based receiver station and the associated gear.
If the economics are/were actually there..I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, as an engineer who has a lot of background in such things...I just gotta shake my head for now. Once every rooftop has a PV system and solar water heater that can benefit from it, once we have developed solar concentrator facilities on all the eligible areas that we can, once we have fully exploited our wind corridors (both inland and off-shore) and once we have developed our geothermal and tidal resources....THEN talk to me about space-based systems if we need more juice. It's all about grabbing the low-hanging fruit first...not doing the most expensive option just because it's technically possible.
With the RF frequencies they are saying that they plan on using..it's really not the issue. This isn't some super-concentrated laser beam. This is going to be like a suped-up satellite TV broadcast rather than microwave-based transmission beams that have been touted in other proposals. So again, "can we hit the spot" isn't the issue here (that's a given, since we're trying to "hit" a target the size of a small city with a beam of similar size) but rather if it's economical to try and do so. With the transmission losses, the cost of launch, the sheer cost of the PV panel itself, etc...I'm not holding my breath.
Even if the beam "misses", those nearby will, at worst, have an RF exposure similar to living near a TV broadcast tower. Not something you'd necessarily *encourage* but not something to freak out about, either.
The point is not "can we hit a spot" on the earth..it's with what efficiency can the energy be moved from orbit to said spot. Best results I've seen recently point to about 54% efficiency between terrestrial towers. Not good enough, and definitely not worth the expense (still going to need a bunch of land for the receivers as well as factoring in launch costs) and potential downside to having a multi-megawatt RF interference generator sitting above North America.
And in the end..that's the difference between scientists (your prof) and engineers...scientists discover what can be done...engineers discover what can be done on a budget. But like I said in another post..if a bunch of VC's want to watch their money burn on this project...they're welcome to it. Just so long as taxpayer money doesn't join the "fun".
...otherwise kiss radio astronomy in North America goodbye. Those guys thought they were getting interference from the Iridium constellation? Heh..wait until they get 200MW of broadband RF interference coming down on them from this monstrosity.
Not to mention, this seems to be a complete waste of resources. I'd wager that at least as much land (if not more) will need to be dedicated to the antenna array as a 400MW (put in twice the power to make up for day-only operations) solar concentrator plant if they want any sort of chance of capturing all of the beam for conversion. Add to that the fact that the increased solar incidence in orbit will be conteracted by the losses in RF transmission (engineers were thrilled when they achieved 54% between ground towers recently...). And lets not forget the rather substantial launch costs (likely hundreds of millions of dollars). All in all...this is a concept best suited to the Sims game than real life. I'm all for alternative/renwewable energy...but this is just a waste of time and money. But hey..if some VC's like watching stacks of hundred-dollar-bills burn in the mean time...more power to them. I just hope this idiotic scheme doesn't get any federal funding. Our DOE Secretary is a pretty sharp guy...I'm sure he sees the folly in it as well and hopefully will steer well clear of it. I would think the FCC would have something to say as well..considering the MASSIVE potential for RF interference. Investment tip: I wouldn't be sinking any retirement money into this outfit ;)
I agree that MUDs were a stretch...but there *were* 3-d muds (can move compass rose as well up/down), just without a corresponding 3d rendering engine (although they are available these days). The patent goes into some detail regarding chat server functionality and message passing..which *was* present in MUDs. Again..a stretch..I was just throwing that out there.
EQ had screenshots released from its alpha as early as Jan 2007. It's not much of a stretch to think it was in development earlier than the 1996 filing of the "parent" patent...so I think they're sunk :D UO was even earlier..though it might not have implemented the server-side positional occlusion stuff..I don't know enough about its architecture to comment definitively though it's certainly worth investigating by ncsoft. Ditto Meridian 59. Guess we'll have to wait and see :)
Not only that...but the architecture detailed in the patent seems pretty specific...it's going to be tough, IMHO, to prove infringement. Not only that, but the latest environment for invalidating software patents in general can't be good for world.com.
It all depends on how you interpret some of the claims in the patent. While it does appear to mean a 3-d rendered world on the client...some of the claims are completely server-oriented. And yes, even text-based MUDs can (and were) 3-D at the server level having an ability to travel along compass rose points as well as climb/descend vertically. It's a stretch..but that's what a good lawyer does ;)
That said..obviously games like EQ will be the biggest obstacle in the prior-art argument. The continuation patent application is problematic..I haven't studied the original 1996 patent in sufficient detail to see if all of the claims THERE are applicable to the claims related to EQ et al in the 2000 patent. And again, the details in the 1996 patent go into such excrutiating minutia it's likely that any broadening of the patent claims ex post facto in the 2000 patent might very well be overturned. IANAL and all that..but I think they've got an uphill battle if they want to take on a Sony or Blizzard.
Under this system, who gets the money if I live in Oregon, but I drive north to Colorado to go skiiing?
Would
Exxon probably..since that'd be a 25,000 mile trip or thereabouts :p
Joking aside...you make a good point. The tracking would have to be more sophisticated than a simple mileage accumulator that happened to use gps as a source. It would have to keep real-time tabs on your position so that it could filter out "out of bounds" travel from its calculation. If it's keeping real-time tabs...who's watching/collecting this data? This has abuse written all over it. I'll make Mr. Governor a deal...if he publishes the full contents of his email, phone records, and credit card purchases, and full gps tracking data of his vehicle(s) on the state website (personal and state-business)...then *perhaps* a quid-pro-quo style of invasion of privacy could be contemplated. Until then...he can respectfully fuck off.
compulsory gps tracking of my vehicle?
I have prepared a statement for the State of Oregon and any government official who thinks this is a good idea:
Ahem...
"Fuck You".
Thank you, that is all.
Filed in 2000? Um...shouldn't be too hard to show prior art to overturn it if the patent indeed is applicable to operating MMOs. UO and EQ for sure...probably even text-based MUDs.
I would imagine to verify that the person entering the country on a green card is the same person who applied for (and was granted) the green card is the motivation. The prints *are* digitized...and that's the point to compare the digitized ones on file with the ones you present at the point of entry. However, since it should be fairly easy to verify one's identity at the Point of Entry via the picture that (should) pop up on the CBP officer's screen when the green card is swiped...I'm not sure I understand the benefit of this new initiative fully, either. I would imagine that it's easier to fake a set of finger prints (via latex glue-ons) than it is to fake your face to another human under fairly intense scrutiny in person...but what do I know (besides the honorary immigration law degree bestowed upon anyone who has successfully navigated the system to LPR status LOL)? In the end...it might not actually help security but I suppose it can't hurt to have another layer of verification.
And to those crying about privacy yadda yadda...this system is for entry into the country. Nothing about being a permanent resident says anything about being able to waltz through a point of entry without inspection and/or scrutiny. Don't want to be fingerprinted (again..as parent post points out)..don't cross the international borders ;) Let me know when this program is rolled out to cross state borders and/or get on a domestic flight..then I'll join in on the chorus of outcry.
A Farad is similar to Amps..useless for comparing actual energy or power without the corresponding voltage involved. In (over)simple terms it describes the number of electrons being stored for later release...similar to the relationship to volume to a liquid in some arbitrary container. And similarly, asking how much work can be done with 1 gallon of water is as useless as asking how much work (ie kWh) can be stored in a 3000F (or 30,000F) capacitor. Without knowing the pressure (ie voltage), it is indeterminate.
your AA battery (and thus ultimately the 3000F capacitor it is connected to) stores 1.5V of potential. The EEStor ultracap claims to store 3500V. For every coulomb of charge, the eestore device is storing about 2300 times as much energy (kwh) as the 3000F capacitor in your example. There's the difference ;)
"If you need liquid nitrogen to boost it to 6 GHz, it's not all that interesting. Nehalem 2.66 GHz offering has also been shown to overclock to 4 GHz on air cooling, and some people have got the 3.2 GHz offering up to 4.5 GHz on air. On GHz they're roughly the same, possibly with a slight Intel edge."
Show me an Intel chip that doesn't require LN2 to reach 6Ghz, and I'll agree with you that it's not interesting. The fact that they've been able to at least match an intel offering is very interesting to me, personally...given the 2 years of having their asses handed to them by the wakened Intel giant.
"I thought both companies were ditching the GHz war and fighting for actual performance supremacy? What's with the silly "my GHz is bigger than yours" competition? Do we have PPW numbers, or just press releases that mean nothing?"
Well, back in the day of the P4 versus Athlon...you might have had a point since there was such a huge gulf between the two architectures in instructions per cycle (IPC). These days, the IPC is much closer so Ghz is a decent (though not perfect) measuring stick for coarse comparisons. Obviously, the most important metric is a set of benchmarks on the application that YOU are interested in..but as a first cut Ghz will do these days (it's the closest we've had to an apples-to-apples since the old k5/PIII days). Others have already talked about how reaching the "max freq", on air and cryo-cooled is more of a testament to the engineering soundness of the design, and not necessarily indicative of the consumer-level performance to be expected. Again..benches (and the PPW numbers you cited) are where the real action is at, but it's hard to fit a full set of benches on a shelf tag so Ghz still has its place in marketing. For the first time in a while, the Ghz comparisons actually have some meaning, so enjoy the brief window of sanity in number comparisons between the two camps.
Sure, 500x might be plausible if the radiation was actually there to collect. Just the raw solar irradiance, across all wavelengths, doesn't allow for such a dramatic increase in real-world improvements because the energy just isn't there. If we can capture 40% now with the very best cells (which is calculated based on that same value for solar irradiance across all wavelengths), the most we can hope for is 100%, right? That's a far cry from 500x gain. Perhaps the author of the original article meant a 500% gain? That's plausible when compared to mainstream PV cells on the market.
It uses public-key encryption...so presumably it carries around the "public" portion of the key pair that is used to encrypt the files. The black-mailer has the private portion that is sold to the victim.
I don't have much of a different view than you...I just use the correct terminology. You call command and control signals "phoning home". They are not for that purpose. Can they be abused? Sure they can. So can any piece of technology. Should we move away to some log cabin in the mountains lest we be exposed to the *possibility* of someone abusing a piece of technology? You seem to lean towards "yes". I lean towards "no" with the ability to tolerate the small amount of risk that the technology will be abused as you say. It doesn't mean that I necessarily trust the cable companies to have a conscience...rather that I am familiar enough with the technology to realize that there are so many fingers in this proverbial pie that having a massive breach of privacy as you are afraid of would necessitate a massive conspiracy amongst a great number of companies (any one of which could blow the whole thing with a single anonymous phonecall to the press)...one that would be near impossible to keep secret for long. Therefore, it is basically a self-correcting problem for the most part. Hell, even the NSA couldn't keep it's most highly classified project with the telecoms secret for long.
While my observations might be insulting to you, I don't feel embarrassed in the least for pointing out fallacies in your arguments...but thanks for your concern.
Depends on where you live I suppose ;) I'm sure Comcast will focus their rollout in those markets that are currently being served by FiOS internet or are on the verge of being served. That's several million households so far...pretty decent chunk of market in its own right.
Um, as I said...this is no different than current digital cable boxes. If you have a problem with 2-way communication, then you shouldn't have digital cable..period. Stick with OTA TV via a pair of rabbit ears. Better stay off the internet too...if you don't think your viewing habits are being monitored/dissected by a number of interested parties, you are fooling yourself.
Appreciate the "attack" or not...you don't get it.
And yes, I know what my computers are running...thanks.
Yeah, I wanted OTA quality...and some friggin content. The box is just that: a box. You've made the assertion (based on this thread that you've chosen to become involved with) that you don't want a DVR since between VOD and netflix (don't need no stinkin' linear programming from the cable company)...you have all the content you need. From the link you provided:
"Works with popular DVR software:
* Pause, rewind, fast-forward live TV.
* Record all your favorite TV shows by name.
* Integrated TV guide (provided by the DVR software).
"
Well well well...now we're relying on linear content after all.
As for the bidirectional communication angle: In case you haven't noticed, over-the-air OTA and unencrypted QAM make up a fairly insignificant portion of what is available in the typical digital cable system when one signs up for various premium tiers...and it will dwindle as a fraction more and more as SDV is rolled out and nearly all programming save a few basic channels plus the local broadcast channels are moved to the switched architecture which requires 2-way communication to view.
Wake me up when that box can record 100% of the content offered in the MLB Extra Innings, the ESPN GamePlan, MLS Direct Kick, NBA League Pass, and NHL Center Ice premium sports packages just to look at sports programming. How about all the Discovery Channel HD sub-channels? Etc Etc. Didn't think so either.
But thanks for making my point for me. I'd mod you up +1 for "helpful to LabRat's cause" if I could.
really? How many recent sporting events are available from Netflix? All of the college and professional football games that I care about are on my DVR until I watch and/or delete them. Show me equivalent *legal* sources of such content available *right now* in full OTA-quality HD. Didn't think so.
Without the 2-way communication, the cablecard doesn't allow you to access VOD, SDV, etc as you snarkily surmise. Ditto the clear QAM tuners included in recent tv's and dvr's. In addition..yes VOD is probably the "way of the future"..but you'd be hard-pressed to find the variety in any provider's VOD selection that matches what can be found across the breadth of their linear programming that can be recorded. If you ONLY watch recent movies..then you are probably set. But there are many, many magnitudes more hours of content that is available in linear programming that is currently unavailable in VOD format (most sporting events, niche documentaries, etc etc).
It's obvious you don't grasp how modern digital cable works. This isn't about "phoning home". This is about being able to send command/control signals to the head-end equipment in order to access dynamically provisioned resources. Just as your web browser isn't "phoning home" when you open a TCP connection to slashdot in order to request the index page. Such dynamic resources include Switched Digital Video (sort of like multicast in the IP world..but not quite as granular), VOD, PPV, etc. Yes, it's true that all of those services can be accessed today without 2-way communication capabilities (formally konwn as OCAP, now I guess re-branded to "Tru2Way")..but they required you to rent a converter box from the cable company. Including this functionality into consumer electronics will eliminate the need to rent a second piece of hardware from the cable company...though if you just really like the idea of being charged $10/month or whatever for no good reason other than to have the privilege of having their official box and green LED clock on top of your A/V stack, I'm sure the cable company will be happy to accommodate you. If you are worried about your cable system monitoring your viewing habits, I sure hope you don't have a digital converter box ;)
it's not that the parts got "stronger"..it's that the frame didn't weaken over time like a standard aluminum frame of "normal planes" because of the heating-cooling cycle was effectively an annealing process which prevented cracks from forming and propagating.
And the MiG 25 would be another example :)