I'm pretty skeptical about generating 25W of power just from the glow in the dark paint off the face of a watch, but it was interesting reading nonetheless.
I wish it were that easy. I'd love to take the Tritium-D out of the night sights from 100 rifles. It would make a great but very expensive battery!:}
Looks like we'll both have to play the waiting game together.
I want to know when we're going to have nuclear cars.
Tritium-D is a safe source of nuclear energy. Imagine the effect of putting one of these in a Toyota Prius or other hybrid car:
You could run the car electric only far more often. The Tritium-D could just continuously charge the batteries. Under heavy or continuous usage you'd still use gas, but that isn't the way most cars are used.
It's estimated that 80%+ of car usage is over very short distances.
Tritium-D is easily shielded and contained, and even fairly long term exposure is totally safe.
And yes, it's expensive right now. But that's because it's produced in very small quantities. It doesn't have to stay that way.
As I said very clearly in my post, and I'll say it again and try to use smaller words so you can understand, the noise (sound) is only an issue when there is too much heat.
If the processor didn't produce so much heat, the cooling could be achieved with either passive cooling, or slower rotating fans and noise (sound) wouldn't be an issue.
Yes, one of the nicer side effects and possible motivation for using liquid cooling is that it is quieter, but the ENTIRE PURPOSE of liquid cooling is to COOL the processor BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH HEAT.
Join the club. Would you like some milk to help that go down smoother?
Screw the thermometer. Use a better instrument: your eyes.
Ice shelves at least 10,000 years old are melting at an alarming rate, over the entire planet.
Ground that has always been frozen throughout recorded history (permafrost) is now thawed and muddy (unfortunately the frozen ground also covers huge stores of methane in the soil, that is now being released and will only increase the warming trend).
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist (or any other kind of scientist) to see the trends. All it takes is open minded observation.
Yes, climates naturally change. But they do so slowly, not over the course of a measley 30 years that just happens to coincide with the massive growth in vehicle use and power plants.
To think that we aren't having an adverse affect on the climate is ludicrous.
Yes, there probably have been times when sea level has naturally risen by 50 feet. But do we really want to cause that right now? I'd rather it happen in 10,000 years naturally, then in 30 years with us to blame for it.
I don't own beach front property right now, but at the rate we're going, the land I own now will be beach front property before I retire.
Global warming all boils down to cause and effect.
Salinity in the ocean is the effect of melting ice (adding water to the ocean), not the cause of global warming.
A good place to look for the cause of global warming is to identify things that have changed signifigantly in the last 50 years.
Very, very high on that list is the number of vehicles on the roads, and the number of smoke stacks in the sky.
Yes, "big fat corporations" are part of the problem. More accurately, the lack of accountability placed on them is part of the problem.
A bigger part of the problem is the average vehicle in America. The amount of cars on the road today is staggering. The average MPG of these vehicles is even more staggering.
An even bigger part of the problem is the average attitude in America. "I want a big SUV and cheap gas" being high on the list. We vote with our dollars, and in most cases we vote against the environment, not for it.
Unfortunately, and ironically, the extremist environmentalist wackos do more to hurt their own cause than help it. In the end, the average American gets so sick of hearing about spotted owls, desert tortoises, and public lands being closed off to public use, that the last thing they want to hear about is the environment and how they can help it.
The combined result of all these factors is that we ARE cranking out more pollution than the planet has ever had to deal with before, and it is quite clearly unable to keep up. As these greenhouse gasses build up, the temperature rises. This rise is most dramatic in places that are usually cold.
The permafrost is no longer "perma" or "frost", ice is melting all over the planet (though I have focused on several ice shelves in particular in this discussion), and CO2 is rising at an alarming rate as discussed on Slashdot recently. Of course, all of this is easily dismissed as cyclical or natural to those that don't believe in global warming.
To say FF is more buggy and less secure than IE because of the number of bugs found is higher is as stupid as it is inaccurate.
I spent 4 HOURS at my inlaws house on Saturday removing OVER 800 different bugs and viruses (750 removed by Ad-Aware, 50+ had to be removed by hand) from their XP machine. I would never have believed it if I didn't see it.
This is an old man and an old woman. ALL they do on that computer is suck in pictures from their camera, read email, and occaisionally surf the web. They never download and install programs.
Firefox is infinitely more secure than IE in real world usage. The vast majority of bugs are only minor issues and do not lead to the entire computer being owned.
Compare that to IE, where the vast majority of bugs ARE doozies and DO lead the machine being compromised. Tying IE so deeply into the OS was the stupidest thing MS could have done. I'd like to send them a bill for my 4 hours, just to see if I get a response.
The change in salinity in the ocean will not be the cause of climate change, at all. It will be another symptom of the underlying problem.
And the problem is far larger than we have, or will, get into in this discussion.
But the focus of this discussion, for me, has been that we are capable as a species of signifigantly changing earth's climate (ie. global warming), and that if the polar ice shelves are any indication (and I believe they are), then we are changing it raplidly enough to bring about an outcome that we may not want, and ultimately may not be able to stop.
The "conservative" Republicans, aren't being very conservative right now in their environmental policies. The only thing being conserved are profits.
I'm not sure what percentage of the oceans volume a 70m rise would account for, and I'm not going to waste time finding out, but lets say for the sake of argument that it represents a 1% increase in the volume of the ocean.
Does it not stand to reason that the salinity of the ocean would go down by just under 1% if that water were added?
In a more "everyday" application, Martha Stewart is using the same collaboration techniques to connect 118 prisoners from 13 women's prisons to perfect her recipe for beef stroganoff...
I do, however, feel that Firefox and the entire Mozilla family of products are poised to make a far greater contribution to the open source movement.
Not so much in terms of their quality or importance, but in terms of their mass effectiveness in opening peoples eyes to the quality, security, and usability of open source software.
Indeed, in the broswer market, they're the only open source product that has a chance in the short term:
I love the strides that open source in general are making, and look forward to the rapidly approaching day when I can sever all ties with windows and run Linux / BSD on my desktop (I'm close now, but Photoshop and Dreamweaver MX are holding me back).
You are simply entirely uneducated on this matter. Spend even a little time looking into it and I think you'll find the argument compelling.
I never said there should be or was a 40% increase in temperature, and the correlation you're drawing is way off base.
I clearly explained that the ice shelves melting isn't directly what will raise to a change in sea level, sea salinity, or sea water (not air) temperature.
The ice shelves act as a retaining wall. If the retaining wall is eroded away 40% it still holds, and no change (landslide, flood, or in this case massive rapid melting of the looser snow and ice behind the "retaining wall", the ice shelves) is seen.
However, we have NO WAY of rebuilding the ice shelves that are there. So we are 40% or more (since failure is likely before 100% of the ice shelves are gone) of the way to a catastrophic and rapid failure of the ice shelves and the corresponding release of massive amounts of loose snow and ice that are held back by the ice shelves. This loose snow and ice represents 100's or even 1000's of times more water, once melted, than the ice shelves do.
Once this process gets far enough along, we are powerless to stop or reverse it. That is why we need to act now.
There are several of these ice shelves. They are absolutely huge. The fact that a submarine can surface in the area has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
And this isn't a pattern that we are observers to. We are, without a doubt, causing it. Core samples taken from the ice shelves confirm they are a minimum of 10,000 years old.
The vast majority of the damage has happened in the last 30 years and is accelerating.
Magnetic pole shifting is a normal process and we have every reason to believe that it has gone on forever and is cyclical in nature. We are not causing it, and it is entirely unrelated to this discussion.
To answer your last question, Mother Nature has a great way of replenishing ozone: lightning. The violent combustion at higher elevations creates ozone that rises and repairs the ozone holes. But we are destroying ozone much faster than the earth can repair them.
Do you realize how massive the sun is, and how powerful it's gravitation pull is?
You'll either miss it by a LONG shot, or get sucked right in. There will be NO narrow misses here.
It's not like these containers would be travelling at the speed of an asteroid or comet. They'd be moving very slowly (comparitively), and if they get even remotely close the sun will pull them right in.
Besides, in case you forgot, the sun isn't a moving target. Yes, the earth is moving. But that can be used to our advantage. And small course corrections early on will set the waste right on track for the sun.
If there is an accident, like a leak, no big loss. Space is full of radiation anyway. Our addition would be far less than the proverbial drop in the bucket.
It's not anything about the email, the From: address, the Reply-To: adress, or anything else that will yield success in stopping phishing.
If I'm a phisher sending out a million emails, I can EASILY randomly generate From: addresses unique to every email.
But setting up a whole separate website on a different IP address is a whole different story. That takes time and money.
What I am proposing has absolutely nothing to do with the email being sent, but rather the URL that is clicked on in the email. That is where the damage is really done.
Create a simple to use (it could even be integrated into Firefox, for example) and self-maintaining / self-updating way of blacklisting those addresses (both IP's and domains), and you instantly take the wind out of the phishers sails.
Granted the banks aren't (and can't) do enough to stop this, but they aren't the only ones getting hurt and having their time wasted. It can take years to recover from identity theft.
We, as a community, have the power to stop this in it's tracks. And I, for one, think we should.
1. Take a glass of water. 2. Add salt. 3. Measure the salinity. 4. Add considerably more water. 5. Remeasure the salinity. 6. Compare the measurements.
It ain't rocket science.
Next test:
1. Buy 2 aquariums: 1 fresh water, 1 salt water. 2. Switch the fish. 3. Go to sleep for the night. 4. Wake up and check the fish. 5. Confirm they're dead.
Nature has something called balance. It has ways of maintaining that balance until an outside influence screws it up. And yes, it can be screwed up.
They forget an integral part of the software, the "disconnect routine", and you still have confidence that they were thorough in their security approach?!?
That's like saying, "I just got this new Ford Mustang, and it's the sweetest car I've ever driven. They forgot the brake system when they designed it, but I'm pretty confident in the air bag system, so I'll be fine. Sweet car, d00d."
No. We won't convince each other of anything, clearly. Suffice it to say, that after that conversation and others I (who am a lifelong Republican (still) and voted for Bush in 2000) personally am convinced that things in Afghanistan aren't even close to the sugar coated version we are getting from the Bush administration.
This critical view comes from a military group that has a more favorable view of President Bush, Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction than Americans in general.
Exactly my point. So even Bush's strongest supporters (the military and their families) are critical of the situation in Iraq. Americans in general are even more critical. Iraq is a mess.
We need an open source, community based, distributed solution to this problem.
Here is what I suggest:
1. Open source software is created for windows and linux (at least) that redirects browsers to an informational page (possibly at localhost) when they click on a link in a phishing email.
2. Phishing links are submitted by the community, and reviewed by peers. Links that are confirmed as phishing links are added to a list of known bad URL's.
3. The client software lives in the system train (on windows) and updates itself with a new list of known bad URL's at least daily, at most hourly.
Using this solution, you could install this software on grandmas computer once and feel relatively confident that she won't fall pray to a phishing scam.
At the very least it is a far better solution than what is available now: nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty skeptical about generating 25W of power just from the glow in the dark paint off the face of a watch, but it was interesting reading nonetheless.
:}
I wish it were that easy. I'd love to take the Tritium-D out of the night sights from 100 rifles. It would make a great but very expensive battery!
Looks like we'll both have to play the waiting game together.
I want to know when we're going to have nuclear cars.
Tritium-D is a safe source of nuclear energy. Imagine the effect of putting one of these in a Toyota Prius or other hybrid car:
You could run the car electric only far more often. The Tritium-D could just continuously charge the batteries. Under heavy or continuous usage you'd still use gas, but that isn't the way most cars are used.
It's estimated that 80%+ of car usage is over very short distances.
Tritium-D is easily shielded and contained, and even fairly long term exposure is totally safe.
And yes, it's expensive right now. But that's because it's produced in very small quantities. It doesn't have to stay that way.
As I said very clearly in my post, and I'll say it again and try to use smaller words so you can understand, the noise (sound) is only an issue when there is too much heat.
If the processor didn't produce so much heat, the cooling could be achieved with either passive cooling, or slower rotating fans and noise (sound) wouldn't be an issue.
Yes, one of the nicer side effects and possible motivation for using liquid cooling is that it is quieter, but the ENTIRE PURPOSE of liquid cooling is to COOL the processor BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH HEAT.
Join the club. Would you like some milk to help that go down smoother?
Uh, maybe I'm a moron, but is there another reason to use liquid cooling, other than excessive temperature?
And don't say noise, because noise was never an issue until we were pushing the fans hard because of excessive temperature...
I'm thinking it takes a moron to know one.
Nice to meet you.
Screw the thermometer. Use a better instrument: your eyes.
Ice shelves at least 10,000 years old are melting at an alarming rate, over the entire planet.
Ground that has always been frozen throughout recorded history (permafrost) is now thawed and muddy (unfortunately the frozen ground also covers huge stores of methane in the soil, that is now being released and will only increase the warming trend).
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist (or any other kind of scientist) to see the trends. All it takes is open minded observation.
Yes, climates naturally change. But they do so slowly, not over the course of a measley 30 years that just happens to coincide with the massive growth in vehicle use and power plants.
To think that we aren't having an adverse affect on the climate is ludicrous.
Yes, there probably have been times when sea level has naturally risen by 50 feet. But do we really want to cause that right now? I'd rather it happen in 10,000 years naturally, then in 30 years with us to blame for it.
I don't own beach front property right now, but at the rate we're going, the land I own now will be beach front property before I retire.
Global warming all boils down to cause and effect.
Salinity in the ocean is the effect of melting ice (adding water to the ocean), not the cause of global warming.
A good place to look for the cause of global warming is to identify things that have changed signifigantly in the last 50 years.
Very, very high on that list is the number of vehicles on the roads, and the number of smoke stacks in the sky.
Yes, "big fat corporations" are part of the problem. More accurately, the lack of accountability placed on them is part of the problem.
A bigger part of the problem is the average vehicle in America. The amount of cars on the road today is staggering. The average MPG of these vehicles is even more staggering.
An even bigger part of the problem is the average attitude in America. "I want a big SUV and cheap gas" being high on the list. We vote with our dollars, and in most cases we vote against the environment, not for it.
Unfortunately, and ironically, the extremist environmentalist wackos do more to hurt their own cause than help it. In the end, the average American gets so sick of hearing about spotted owls, desert tortoises, and public lands being closed off to public use, that the last thing they want to hear about is the environment and how they can help it.
The combined result of all these factors is that we ARE cranking out more pollution than the planet has ever had to deal with before, and it is quite clearly unable to keep up. As these greenhouse gasses build up, the temperature rises. This rise is most dramatic in places that are usually cold.
The permafrost is no longer "perma" or "frost", ice is melting all over the planet (though I have focused on several ice shelves in particular in this discussion), and CO2 is rising at an alarming rate as discussed on Slashdot recently. Of course, all of this is easily dismissed as cyclical or natural to those that don't believe in global warming.
I'm not sure where they are getting 2%, with Microsoft having almost the rest...
a sp
According to this:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
Firefox / Mozilla is up to 17%, and IE is down to 75.8%.
I say to Microsoft: Good bye, and good riddance!
I agree totally.
To say FF is more buggy and less secure than IE because of the number of bugs found is higher is as stupid as it is inaccurate.
I spent 4 HOURS at my inlaws house on Saturday removing OVER 800 different bugs and viruses (750 removed by Ad-Aware, 50+ had to be removed by hand) from their XP machine. I would never have believed it if I didn't see it.
This is an old man and an old woman. ALL they do on that computer is suck in pictures from their camera, read email, and occaisionally surf the web. They never download and install programs.
Firefox is infinitely more secure than IE in real world usage. The vast majority of bugs are only minor issues and do not lead to the entire computer being owned.
Compare that to IE, where the vast majority of bugs ARE doozies and DO lead the machine being compromised. Tying IE so deeply into the OS was the stupidest thing MS could have done. I'd like to send them a bill for my 4 hours, just to see if I get a response.
The change in salinity in the ocean will not be the cause of climate change, at all. It will be another symptom of the underlying problem.
And the problem is far larger than we have, or will, get into in this discussion.
But the focus of this discussion, for me, has been that we are capable as a species of signifigantly changing earth's climate (ie. global warming), and that if the polar ice shelves are any indication (and I believe they are), then we are changing it raplidly enough to bring about an outcome that we may not want, and ultimately may not be able to stop.
The "conservative" Republicans, aren't being very conservative right now in their environmental policies. The only thing being conserved are profits.
I'm not sure what percentage of the oceans volume a 70m rise would account for, and I'm not going to waste time finding out, but lets say for the sake of argument that it represents a 1% increase in the volume of the ocean.
Does it not stand to reason that the salinity of the ocean would go down by just under 1% if that water were added?
No, PGP is a commercial, non-GPL'd product.
They mean GPG, open source software that works in the same way.
I will NOT buy any car that runs any flavor of Windows. Now or ever.
Mark my words, the quickest way to lose me as a customer is to put Windows under the hood or in the dash.
Nissan, Toyota, and Honda should pay particular attentention to this, as they are my cars of choice.
Sincerely,
A current but potentially former customer
In a more "everyday" application, Martha Stewart is using the same collaboration techniques to connect 118 prisoners from 13 women's prisons to perfect her recipe for beef stroganoff...
Kudos to the KDE / Konqueror team.
a sp
I do, however, feel that Firefox and the entire Mozilla family of products are poised to make a far greater contribution to the open source movement.
Not so much in terms of their quality or importance, but in terms of their mass effectiveness in opening peoples eyes to the quality, security, and usability of open source software.
Indeed, in the broswer market, they're the only open source product that has a chance in the short term:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.
I love the strides that open source in general are making, and look forward to the rapidly approaching day when I can sever all ties with windows and run Linux / BSD on my desktop (I'm close now, but Photoshop and Dreamweaver MX are holding me back).
A quick, easy, and usually painless solution to this is just to bring the tab with the active javascript into focus.
You'd of course only want this for certain events (alerts being chiefest among them...).
You are simply entirely uneducated on this matter. Spend even a little time looking into it and I think you'll find the argument compelling.
I never said there should be or was a 40% increase in temperature, and the correlation you're drawing is way off base.
I clearly explained that the ice shelves melting isn't directly what will raise to a change in sea level, sea salinity, or sea water (not air) temperature.
The ice shelves act as a retaining wall. If the retaining wall is eroded away 40% it still holds, and no change (landslide, flood, or in this case massive rapid melting of the looser snow and ice behind the "retaining wall", the ice shelves) is seen.
However, we have NO WAY of rebuilding the ice shelves that are there. So we are 40% or more (since failure is likely before 100% of the ice shelves are gone) of the way to a catastrophic and rapid failure of the ice shelves and the corresponding release of massive amounts of loose snow and ice that are held back by the ice shelves. This loose snow and ice represents 100's or even 1000's of times more water, once melted, than the ice shelves do.
Once this process gets far enough along, we are powerless to stop or reverse it. That is why we need to act now.
There are several of these ice shelves. They are absolutely huge. The fact that a submarine can surface in the area has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
And this isn't a pattern that we are observers to. We are, without a doubt, causing it. Core samples taken from the ice shelves confirm they are a minimum of 10,000 years old.
The vast majority of the damage has happened in the last 30 years and is accelerating.
Magnetic pole shifting is a normal process and we have every reason to believe that it has gone on forever and is cyclical in nature. We are not causing it, and it is entirely unrelated to this discussion.
To answer your last question, Mother Nature has a great way of replenishing ozone: lightning. The violent combustion at higher elevations creates ozone that rises and repairs the ozone holes. But we are destroying ozone much faster than the earth can repair them.
Personally, I see the fact that it would be built into Firefox as one of the major selling points of Firefox.
It's just one more very compelling reason in a long list of reasons to help our friends and family switch to Firefox.
Eventually, people are going to get sick of being screwed by Microsofts lack of security. It might as well be sooner than later.
But thanks for the heads up on URIBL, I'll look into it.
Perhaps I should just put my coding where my mouth is and write an extension to Firefox that does this...
We're a creative species. I'm absolutely certain we could come up with something that would work.
Miss the sun!?!?
Do you realize how massive the sun is, and how powerful it's gravitation pull is?
You'll either miss it by a LONG shot, or get sucked right in. There will be NO narrow misses here.
It's not like these containers would be travelling at the speed of an asteroid or comet. They'd be moving very slowly (comparitively), and if they get even remotely close the sun will pull them right in.
Besides, in case you forgot, the sun isn't a moving target. Yes, the earth is moving. But that can be used to our advantage. And small course corrections early on will set the waste right on track for the sun.
If there is an accident, like a leak, no big loss. Space is full of radiation anyway. Our addition would be far less than the proverbial drop in the bucket.
It's not anything about the email, the From: address, the Reply-To: adress, or anything else that will yield success in stopping phishing.
If I'm a phisher sending out a million emails, I can EASILY randomly generate From: addresses unique to every email.
But setting up a whole separate website on a different IP address is a whole different story. That takes time and money.
What I am proposing has absolutely nothing to do with the email being sent, but rather the URL that is clicked on in the email. That is where the damage is really done.
Create a simple to use (it could even be integrated into Firefox, for example) and self-maintaining / self-updating way of blacklisting those addresses (both IP's and domains), and you instantly take the wind out of the phishers sails.
Granted the banks aren't (and can't) do enough to stop this, but they aren't the only ones getting hurt and having their time wasted. It can take years to recover from identity theft.
We, as a community, have the power to stop this in it's tracks. And I, for one, think we should.
A quick test:
1. Take a glass of water.
2. Add salt.
3. Measure the salinity.
4. Add considerably more water.
5. Remeasure the salinity.
6. Compare the measurements.
It ain't rocket science.
Next test:
1. Buy 2 aquariums: 1 fresh water, 1 salt water.
2. Switch the fish.
3. Go to sleep for the night.
4. Wake up and check the fish.
5. Confirm they're dead.
Nature has something called balance. It has ways of maintaining that balance until an outside influence screws it up. And yes, it can be screwed up.
They forget an integral part of the software, the "disconnect routine", and you still have confidence that they were thorough in their security approach?!?
That's like saying, "I just got this new Ford Mustang, and it's the sweetest car I've ever driven. They forgot the brake system when they designed it, but I'm pretty confident in the air bag system, so I'll be fine. Sweet car, d00d."
Unreal.
And what did they say? Can you be more specific?
No. We won't convince each other of anything, clearly. Suffice it to say, that after that conversation and others I (who am a lifelong Republican (still) and voted for Bush in 2000) personally am convinced that things in Afghanistan aren't even close to the sugar coated version we are getting from the Bush administration.
This critical view comes from a military group that has a more favorable view of President Bush, Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction than Americans in general.
Exactly my point. So even Bush's strongest supporters (the military and their families) are critical of the situation in Iraq. Americans in general are even more critical. Iraq is a mess.
We need an open source, community based, distributed solution to this problem.
Here is what I suggest:
1. Open source software is created for windows and linux (at least) that redirects browsers to an informational page (possibly at localhost) when they click on a link in a phishing email.
2. Phishing links are submitted by the community, and reviewed by peers. Links that are confirmed as phishing links are added to a list of known bad URL's.
3. The client software lives in the system train (on windows) and updates itself with a new list of known bad URL's at least daily, at most hourly.
Using this solution, you could install this software on grandmas computer once and feel relatively confident that she won't fall pray to a phishing scam.
At the very least it is a far better solution than what is available now: nothing.