Apple won't let you sync your media library to more than one computer at the time. If you try, it insists on erasing your media on the iPad and demotes the other computer to not being linked any more.
I tried that, but every time I got music from another source, it was arranged differently, making searching, indexing and even playing hard.
If you'd have a player that would 1) Figure out the actual name of the album, the year it was released, give me a nice big picture of the cover so I could recognize that without having to read all the info, find the name and sequence of all the tracks 2)play gapless 3) rearrange my music in such a way that other players would be able to use that 4) able to export to mp3 VBR, since I like to use FLAC for home use but my car stereo can't play that. 5) do playlists where I could add and alter without disturbing what I'm playing right now
iTunes does a few of these quite well, but not all. Mainly, it doesn't run on my phone or my daily use computer, so it doesn't qualify at all for my usage
He was asking for cross platform, so unless apple brings it out for Android and Linux, which happen to be on most of my daily use devices, it's not an option. Apple supports OSX, IOS and Windows with their application, which is not enough in my opinion.
Also, Apple has an annoying urge to block your IOS device from linking up to more than just a few other devices without wanting to erase your music library from your device. That doesn't make it very cross platform in my opinion.
See above, the D70(s) was used by professionals when it was just out. Buy a few broken ones (hey, if you're handy enough to use an RPI, you should be able to fix a card slot soldering problem) and you're in the same price range.
If you're handy enough to set all this up, you could buy second hand DSLRs like the Nikon D70 or the D70s with a small problem like soldering of the card slot gone bad. Fix those and you'd be able to use DSLRs with a much better sensor than the crappy picam. Many a wedding was shot with these cameras, including sometimes usage of the kit lens.
Yes, I did factor in the cost of the kit lens, which the guy I'm commenting on didn't. If you're going to talk about the 1D-X you should add in the roughly $1500 for the lens too. Plenty of money to get the control stuff and second hand kit lenses for my D70 rig sorted out.
The fun bit here is that they did a bullet time setup with the RPI using Ethernet and home brew software. Yes, it'd cost less to do it this way than if they would use professional grade cameras, or even amateur stuff, but the image quality isn't better than the average web cam or front cell phone camera. It's an exorcize in setting this sort of thing up, not an attempt to get it done on the cheap.
Is this after correcting against how many would have errors if they were filed directly? I'm willing to bet that direct applications contain a similar number of inaccuracies, so what's the news here?
We do more than make parallel processors with silicon chips. We have memory and flash storage too, for instance. those benefit.
Some tasks do actually scale well to parallelism if you want to talk processor. Still, one core needs access to memory usually, so designing buses that are fast and short enough to get all the cores proper access to the memory will be a challenge, unless you can shrink the process so you will have enough room on your silicon to put the pathways and logic to do so.
While most consumer use software can't deal with parallel stuff, there are plenty of reasons to want process shrink. Higher clock speeds is even one, if you insist on performance gains.
Cash is a piece of paper that is only worth something if the issuer is still somebody. If you have one billion German Reichsmark, you have a piece of memorabilia, totally worthless. That is because the government that issued it declared it worthless.
Valuable metals are nothing more than shiny stuff. Yes, they are of some use in the industry because they tend to corrode very little and have a good electrical conductivity, but almost all their value is based on the fact that they are rare and we humans all agree on their value. The big difference is that there is no signle government that can declare gold worthless and however you have of it is only going to be worth something if you put it through their systems, thereby revealing yourself. Bitcoin and other e-coins are the virtual equivalent. If you want to do a payment and not rely on some form of government-backed currency, you used to pay in gold, silver, diamonds or something like that. Since physical payments don't work very well on the internet, the internet needed a virtual equivalence. This is virtual gold, silver, diamonds or whatever trinkets you fancy, not virtual cash. We have that already in the form of paypal, e-banking and all that.
Most car manufacturers dimension their batteries such, that a car parked with a full battery should be able to start after 2 months under normal circumstances. If your car only lasts ten days, either your battery or charging circuit isn't working properly, or you indeed have devices in the car that consume too much electricity in standby mode. If your radio is the culprit, it really needs to be replaced. Fortunately, car stereos follow an industry standard form factor and plugs, so replacing that should be easy. Oh wait, they all stopped using that because they wanted to integrate all the car computers with that thing.....
You are forgetting that your engine ECU requires power too. They have quite a few dynamic parameters stored in RAM that you really don't want to store in flash because they are updated every few seconds if the engine is running and you need a quick and easy way to erase them. Maybe modern cars would be able to store them in flash, but the older generations didn't have that luxury and would need to relearn their ignition timing and fuel mixture every time you pulled the plug on them.
They could have taken many samples of this one person to verify it's actually the true RNA. Given enough samples, you'd statistically eliminate the deterioration and contamination of individual samples quite drastically. You most certainly wouldn't be able to come up with the definitive complete RNA or DNA of this person, but the margin for error would be so low that even the most sceptical peer reviewer would be convinced.
Contamination would most likely be limited to recent events. Ancient people peeing in the corner would have left a little DNA/RNA, but that would be limited to single cells on or near the surface, not being protected by bone structure or surrounding cells. The chance of that DNA/RNA surviving is way lower than the DNA/RNA inside the bones, so most likely, we're only dealing with the handling of the bones since the 1980s.
Yes, this one person could still be a freak occurrence. However, if you were to see that as a valid argument, our entire theory of the origin of modern humans is based on a few freak occurrences we just happen to have found scattered around the planet.
Ferrari cars cost just as much to develop as your average ford. However, the number of cars being sold, will make the development cost per car much higher. Add much higher production cost because of materials used, fabrication methods used, number of actions to produce a certain part and yield to the equation. Even if Ferrari would make a bold move and decide to sell their cars at the same price as Ford, they would still have to buy more expensive materials and do more to those materials before they are a car.
MicroSoft may have put more money in developing Win7 initially than they did in XP, I wouldn't know if that's the case. The real thing is that the production cost per copy is negligible; they just turn a knob and come up with a sales price based on a marketing model.
The home PC market is crashing since most people don't need a PC anymore to watch movies, communicate with their family or play games. The introduction of the computer in the home has moved from the single device to smart phones, tablets, media players and game consoles. People hardly need a "real" computer anymore and the budget for one has moved on to other devices. School going kids and students may need one to do school work on and learn, but the requirements for that sort of machine aren't that exciting usually and an older model or really cheap new hardware will do just fine.
Offices don't really need PCs to do more than office work. To be honest, typing a letter or stuffing things in a spreadsheet hasn't changed much over the past ten years or so. Offices tend to move towards VDI where the machine the user has is only an input/output device and the "desktop" is actually running on a server, often not using a desktop OS in a VM, but simply a session on a server OS.
MicroSoft is losing their monopoly in office suit software, server software, e-mail platforms and such. Several attempts to get new markets like search engines, media and music players, have failed to yield any profit and are costing them money. Depending on how you look at it, their game console business is a success, but the net profit they got from it is either not fantastic, or they are still in the red and it's not a commercial success at all. They have a large part of the market, but it's still not clear how much they have spent to get that and if they actually have recovered that money. The desktop PC market is shrinking rapidly and they need some way to keep all those developers paid and shareholders happy.
With the current stock price and results they had in the past, shareholders have very high demands. This makes that they are turning the knob for the Windows7 and 8 desktop OS prices way up. This makes people either pirate it, or buy a PC that comes loaded with crapware to sponsor the price of the OS, or they move to another OS because they are tired of the whole windows clutter and viruses.
In China, crapware sponsorship is worth next to nothing because piracy is much more prevalent there and sponsors expect very little return on the installations. That makes the OS very expensive to put on legally for vendors or end users, resulting in even more piracy.
China has the power to convince MicroSoft to extend XP life and even sell it for a lower fee. If the Chinese government would decide to move to Linux as the OS for all official government desktops, home users will follow that sooner or later, especially if it was free and there would be less malware. It wouldn't be easy or cheap to do so for China, but this XP retirement is an event where they have a clear cost/benefit model that has a pivot point that is an actual threat to MicroSoft. If China would migrate to Linux, it'd give a much bigger threat to MicroSoft than a few German cities doing it. Even the cities migrations have already resulted in quite a few enhancements that make Linux a more viable desktop alternative. Once China puts their weight in, the reasons that keep linux away from the corporate desktop will disappear rapidly. Given the recent revelations
Reinventing the wheel all over again and then fighting over who made it round.... This will end up as one of those brilliant ideas nobody will ever use because it's too expensive and people buy new (used) bikes every few years anyway, or they only have one for show and they don't actually ride it. What's the business case for spending $800 on a wheel to still ride an old bike if you can buy an all new shiny electric bike for less.
You'd have to faraday your entire car for this to work. Your entire wiring loom is one big antenna for this sort of signal. At the wavelength of radar, you'd be having a hard time keeping it all out too. Even tiny gaps to let the streering and drive shafts through, signal would probably creep in.
Making the electronic circuit boards themselves filter all their I/O and power lines for HF and over-voltage would be much easier to accomplish and probably more effective.
It's a LIDAR system. They shoot a laser at a pre-determined location and they measure the time it takes a single photon to hit their sensor. That's the distance part. They use some funky math to come up with a more detailed picture/model. The combination of the math and the fact that they only need one photon in a working apparatus makes this "special".
Most "poor" countries to which we send aid, are being plundered just as hard, or even harder. Every time we send food aid to some poor African or central American country, the local farmers get no money for the little food they produce and the local market is ruined, stopping local production of food instead of encouraging it.
Every time we demand the lowest price for all the stuff we import from those countries, we make them find ways to produce even cheaper, lowering the standard of life there. This results in pricing that is so low that our own economy can't compete and we put import taxes on these goods. This results in the foreign producers being forced to lower their prices even more, again ruining their economy and health.
Instead of "sending aid" every time a famine or natural disaster strikes one of these countries, we should stop plundering them. Micro credits for local businesses there have helped a lot, investing in farming for local food supply helps. These people are perfectly capable of helping themselves, given half a chance.
This may not be a unknown or "zero day" vulnerability, but it's quite a serious security problem. If The WiFi systems inside the EU buildings were not properly secured and known script-kiddie level attacks were possible, it's good that somebody came forward and proved that this is a real problem. Administrators were aware, or should have been and did not act.
Hacking accounts using MitM and selling the information to governments interested in this sort of information is what a black hat would have done. This guy just hacked a few accounts and then came forward to make certain that the obvious leak would be fixed. Just telling them would probably given a response of "That's not possible, because we use encrypted WiFi" or something similar. As far as we know, no secrets were revealed or leaked and no "private" e-mail was looked at, so there was no real damage.
You are basing your opinion on a sample of one single drive. That's quite a large standard deviation. If you look at defect rates from the larger retailers, over 20% of OCZs SSDs sold have been replaced due to catastrophic failures during the warranty period. This is not limited to a small time frame or a single model, but it's been so consistently since they started selling SSDs.
Numbers for the latest generations have not been conclusive yet, since a lot of those are still in warranty and they could go up. There are strong indications they are in fact improving, but the statistics aren't precise enough to plot failure rates to the exact number of days or read/write actions the drives endured.
Even if they are improving, people will want to wait a while to see that this isn't a glitch, but actual improvement. OCZ will have to take a loss on their SSD drives for quite a long time to prove their reliability and have people restore their faith in them. Yes, that part is hype, but their reputation isn't based on hype.
The procedures she has been in have not found evidence of wrong-doing. That is something different than that it found evidence there was no wrong-doing. It's a lack of substantial evidence proving her right, no evidence proving her wrong has been found. This academical difference is crucial here, since legally she's wrong, but scientifically she can still be right.
I'd like to see the research she is disputing repeated by independent researchers. If a few repeat experiments are done, we'll get a good idea of who is actually right in this case without court action. In this case the law sees no evidence of wrong-doing, but science might at least prove the experiment was conducted wrong. Proving intent in publishing false results may still be hard, but at least the results will be nullified.
Tesla's under armor is quarter inch aluminum plating. The only way to seriously improve on that would be to put something engine sized, shaped and weighed in the front trunk to take the blow. There are a large number of disadvantages to do so, both in daily usage and in safety. The car would be way heavier and you'd have a large lump of metal causing all sorts fo hurt and damage in case of a frontal crash. You can armor a car against all sorts of conceivable harm, but there's a practical limit. I think that Tesla thought of these scenarios and weighed out all options and scenarios and came to this compromise for a reason.
So far, the Tesla cars have worked as designed. Flames coming out may seem scary, but in reality, nobody got hurt and costs haven't been that different when compared to a similarly sized and priced gasoline car in the same situation. These cars have some rather fundamental differences to gasoline cars and we have yet to come to terms with that. If you look at statistics for gasoline cars, which have rather low standard deviations, you'd see that they aren't exactly safe in comparable crashes, nor in fire hazard safety. Because of the low number of Teslas and the short time they are around, it's extremely hard to say something statistically about them yet. All we get to read about are three crashes where they caught fire due to the battery compartment getting pierced. We have no idea how they are going to hold in the first 100000 crashes they will have, ranging from fender benders to getting squashed between two large trailers or falling off a cliff. I'm sure we'll see some things where a Tesla will do worse than the average gasoline car in those circumstances, but we'll also be seeing situations where they will be doing better. Tesla have but a lot of thought to the design of their car and they have used the possibilities of rearranging the complete propulsion to improve on safety in a lot of cases. Their simulations and internal testing have proven their choices to be the safest compromise they could come up with. So far, real world crashes have not significantly changed their safety model. There probably will be incidents in the future where they can only say "we didn't think of that", but these fires aren't one of them.
Keep in mind, cars aren't designed to be safe, they are designed to be affordable, attractive, profitable and pass mandatory safety tests. Ralph Nadar changed that perspective momentarily, but we've only been going through small iterations in safety regulations since that. Car companies mostly have been improving as a reaction to those iterations. Only a few car companies have actively been improving their designs without the pressure of regulations or comparative crash tests. Most companies will only test cars to give good results in common tests that they know their vehicle will be rated on. Once they receive a good or excellent grade in those tests, they're done. They know how to improve safety on their vehicles, but they can't justify the cost of that because they won't be able to recuperate those in a higher sales price. A good example of this is Saab. They lost, because they couldn't make their cars competitively priced, even though they were safer in a lot of circumstances. People just aren't aware, or not prepared to pay for the extra safety. Maybe it's time another Ralph Nader would submit the 50 most popular cars on the road this day to a 55mph rear impact, or a t-bone. Even the regular sized dummies have a very low survival rate in such crashes. Car companies know how to make those crashes survivable, they prepare their race cars in such a way that almost always, inhabitants of those can just walk away from such crashes. Maybe they should start testing with real world testing dolls. Use the extremes of the human physique to test with so you can assume that anybody in between those extremes will be safe. A non-overweight 5.5-6ft doll might not get hurt in a crash, but over 50% of inhabitants of vehicles are so far from that, that they will get hurt in a sim
The things that the two Teslas that burned out hit would have totaled any comparable sized gasoline car, likely causing hurt to the people in the car and very likely created hazardous oil spills. The people inside the car would not have had the chance to drive the car to a safe location to get out safely, but would have had to leave the car in the middle of a busy road, if they would have been able to get out at all. The chance that more vehicles would have been crashed, possibly hitting the original vehicle is quite real in such a scenario. Maybe there wouldn't have been a fire with the gasoline cars in these situation, but in terms of hazard or financial damage, the gasoline cars would most likely have been less safe and more expensive in a similar situation. Cleanup of oil spills is a lot more expensive than just putting out a fire, even if it was an electric car fire.
The third Tesla was crashed by a drunk guy and almost the entire undercarriage was knocked off. That may have not caused a fire if it had been a gasoline car, but it most certainly was not road debris.
How about splitting the prize money based on an objective points system? You could add bonus money for the apps that score higher, subtract for apps that merely add features to an already existing app, so you'll only merit the improvements, not the whole app. It makes it ridiculously complicated to come up with a points system that isn't cheatable, but you could probably come up with something that's harder to doctor than it's worth.
Showing up in court, bringing a lawyer and all that would most likely cost way over $1000, regardless of what the case was or how much preparation was required. If the original photographer settled for an amount below that, which isn't that uncommon as a publishing fee for news photographs, they'd still be cheaper off than going to court and getting themselves off the hook.
In the USA, you usually can't get your own costs reimbursed for such a case, even if you win. In other countries, you often only get a predetermined fee which seldom covers the full costs but only a standard figure for the things your lawyer did for you. This makes going to court often not worth it, even if you're right, making justice something only the wealthy can afford....
It's in the same package, but not made in the same silicon or process. The package contains several pieces of silicon. Look at it as a miniature circuit board with several individual chips on it.
Trackers *are* blocked and taken offline all the time. That is, if there were any trackers left, most are gone. BitTorrent has different methods now to discover peers. PEX, DHT and LDP for peer discovery, Magnet links to replace.torrent files. You essentially can't block bittorrent without extremely "expensive" Deep Packet Inspection, essentially eavesdropping on every consumers internet traffic 100% of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple won't let you sync your media library to more than one computer at the time. If you try, it insists on erasing your media on the iPad and demotes the other computer to not being linked any more.
I tried that, but every time I got music from another source, it was arranged differently, making searching, indexing and even playing hard.
If you'd have a player that would 1) Figure out the actual name of the album, the year it was released, give me a nice big picture of the cover so I could recognize that without having to read all the info, find the name and sequence of all the tracks 2)play gapless 3) rearrange my music in such a way that other players would be able to use that 4) able to export to mp3 VBR, since I like to use FLAC for home use but my car stereo can't play that. 5) do playlists where I could add and alter without disturbing what I'm playing right now
iTunes does a few of these quite well, but not all. Mainly, it doesn't run on my phone or my daily use computer, so it doesn't qualify at all for my usage
He was asking for cross platform, so unless apple brings it out for Android and Linux, which happen to be on most of my daily use devices, it's not an option. Apple supports OSX, IOS and Windows with their application, which is not enough in my opinion.
Also, Apple has an annoying urge to block your IOS device from linking up to more than just a few other devices without wanting to erase your music library from your device. That doesn't make it very cross platform in my opinion.
They forgot to program a time delay in and had all the cameras shoot at the same moment. It will be fixed in the next major release though. ;)
See above, the D70(s) was used by professionals when it was just out. Buy a few broken ones (hey, if you're handy enough to use an RPI, you should be able to fix a card slot soldering problem) and you're in the same price range.
If you're handy enough to set all this up, you could buy second hand DSLRs like the Nikon D70 or the D70s with a small problem like soldering of the card slot gone bad. Fix those and you'd be able to use DSLRs with a much better sensor than the crappy picam. Many a wedding was shot with these cameras, including sometimes usage of the kit lens.
Yes, I did factor in the cost of the kit lens, which the guy I'm commenting on didn't. If you're going to talk about the 1D-X you should add in the roughly $1500 for the lens too. Plenty of money to get the control stuff and second hand kit lenses for my D70 rig sorted out.
The fun bit here is that they did a bullet time setup with the RPI using Ethernet and home brew software. Yes, it'd cost less to do it this way than if they would use professional grade cameras, or even amateur stuff, but the image quality isn't better than the average web cam or front cell phone camera. It's an exorcize in setting this sort of thing up, not an attempt to get it done on the cheap.
Is this after correcting against how many would have errors if they were filed directly? I'm willing to bet that direct applications contain a similar number of inaccuracies, so what's the news here?
We do more than make parallel processors with silicon chips. We have memory and flash storage too, for instance. those benefit.
Some tasks do actually scale well to parallelism if you want to talk processor. Still, one core needs access to memory usually, so designing buses that are fast and short enough to get all the cores proper access to the memory will be a challenge, unless you can shrink the process so you will have enough room on your silicon to put the pathways and logic to do so.
While most consumer use software can't deal with parallel stuff, there are plenty of reasons to want process shrink. Higher clock speeds is even one, if you insist on performance gains.
Cash is a piece of paper that is only worth something if the issuer is still somebody. If you have one billion German Reichsmark, you have a piece of memorabilia, totally worthless. That is because the government that issued it declared it worthless.
Valuable metals are nothing more than shiny stuff. Yes, they are of some use in the industry because they tend to corrode very little and have a good electrical conductivity, but almost all their value is based on the fact that they are rare and we humans all agree on their value. The big difference is that there is no signle government that can declare gold worthless and however you have of it is only going to be worth something if you put it through their systems, thereby revealing yourself. Bitcoin and other e-coins are the virtual equivalent. If you want to do a payment and not rely on some form of government-backed currency, you used to pay in gold, silver, diamonds or something like that. Since physical payments don't work very well on the internet, the internet needed a virtual equivalence. This is virtual gold, silver, diamonds or whatever trinkets you fancy, not virtual cash. We have that already in the form of paypal, e-banking and all that.
Most car manufacturers dimension their batteries such, that a car parked with a full battery should be able to start after 2 months under normal circumstances. If your car only lasts ten days, either your battery or charging circuit isn't working properly, or you indeed have devices in the car that consume too much electricity in standby mode. If your radio is the culprit, it really needs to be replaced. Fortunately, car stereos follow an industry standard form factor and plugs, so replacing that should be easy. Oh wait, they all stopped using that because they wanted to integrate all the car computers with that thing.....
You are forgetting that your engine ECU requires power too. They have quite a few dynamic parameters stored in RAM that you really don't want to store in flash because they are updated every few seconds if the engine is running and you need a quick and easy way to erase them. Maybe modern cars would be able to store them in flash, but the older generations didn't have that luxury and would need to relearn their ignition timing and fuel mixture every time you pulled the plug on them.
They could have taken many samples of this one person to verify it's actually the true RNA. Given enough samples, you'd statistically eliminate the deterioration and contamination of individual samples quite drastically. You most certainly wouldn't be able to come up with the definitive complete RNA or DNA of this person, but the margin for error would be so low that even the most sceptical peer reviewer would be convinced.
Contamination would most likely be limited to recent events. Ancient people peeing in the corner would have left a little DNA/RNA, but that would be limited to single cells on or near the surface, not being protected by bone structure or surrounding cells. The chance of that DNA/RNA surviving is way lower than the DNA/RNA inside the bones, so most likely, we're only dealing with the handling of the bones since the 1980s.
Yes, this one person could still be a freak occurrence. However, if you were to see that as a valid argument, our entire theory of the origin of modern humans is based on a few freak occurrences we just happen to have found scattered around the planet.
Ferrari cars cost just as much to develop as your average ford. However, the number of cars being sold, will make the development cost per car much higher. Add much higher production cost because of materials used, fabrication methods used, number of actions to produce a certain part and yield to the equation. Even if Ferrari would make a bold move and decide to sell their cars at the same price as Ford, they would still have to buy more expensive materials and do more to those materials before they are a car.
MicroSoft may have put more money in developing Win7 initially than they did in XP, I wouldn't know if that's the case. The real thing is that the production cost per copy is negligible; they just turn a knob and come up with a sales price based on a marketing model.
The home PC market is crashing since most people don't need a PC anymore to watch movies, communicate with their family or play games. The introduction of the computer in the home has moved from the single device to smart phones, tablets, media players and game consoles. People hardly need a "real" computer anymore and the budget for one has moved on to other devices. School going kids and students may need one to do school work on and learn, but the requirements for that sort of machine aren't that exciting usually and an older model or really cheap new hardware will do just fine.
Offices don't really need PCs to do more than office work. To be honest, typing a letter or stuffing things in a spreadsheet hasn't changed much over the past ten years or so. Offices tend to move towards VDI where the machine the user has is only an input/output device and the "desktop" is actually running on a server, often not using a desktop OS in a VM, but simply a session on a server OS.
MicroSoft is losing their monopoly in office suit software, server software, e-mail platforms and such. Several attempts to get new markets like search engines, media and music players, have failed to yield any profit and are costing them money. Depending on how you look at it, their game console business is a success, but the net profit they got from it is either not fantastic, or they are still in the red and it's not a commercial success at all. They have a large part of the market, but it's still not clear how much they have spent to get that and if they actually have recovered that money. The desktop PC market is shrinking rapidly and they need some way to keep all those developers paid and shareholders happy.
With the current stock price and results they had in the past, shareholders have very high demands. This makes that they are turning the knob for the Windows7 and 8 desktop OS prices way up. This makes people either pirate it, or buy a PC that comes loaded with crapware to sponsor the price of the OS, or they move to another OS because they are tired of the whole windows clutter and viruses.
In China, crapware sponsorship is worth next to nothing because piracy is much more prevalent there and sponsors expect very little return on the installations. That makes the OS very expensive to put on legally for vendors or end users, resulting in even more piracy.
China has the power to convince MicroSoft to extend XP life and even sell it for a lower fee. If the Chinese government would decide to move to Linux as the OS for all official government desktops, home users will follow that sooner or later, especially if it was free and there would be less malware. It wouldn't be easy or cheap to do so for China, but this XP retirement is an event where they have a clear cost/benefit model that has a pivot point that is an actual threat to MicroSoft. If China would migrate to Linux, it'd give a much bigger threat to MicroSoft than a few German cities doing it. Even the cities migrations have already resulted in quite a few enhancements that make Linux a more viable desktop alternative. Once China puts their weight in, the reasons that keep linux away from the corporate desktop will disappear rapidly. Given the recent revelations
Reinventing the wheel all over again and then fighting over who made it round.... This will end up as one of those brilliant ideas nobody will ever use because it's too expensive and people buy new (used) bikes every few years anyway, or they only have one for show and they don't actually ride it. What's the business case for spending $800 on a wheel to still ride an old bike if you can buy an all new shiny electric bike for less.
You'd have to faraday your entire car for this to work. Your entire wiring loom is one big antenna for this sort of signal. At the wavelength of radar, you'd be having a hard time keeping it all out too. Even tiny gaps to let the streering and drive shafts through, signal would probably creep in.
Making the electronic circuit boards themselves filter all their I/O and power lines for HF and over-voltage would be much easier to accomplish and probably more effective.
It's a LIDAR system. They shoot a laser at a pre-determined location and they measure the time it takes a single photon to hit their sensor. That's the distance part. They use some funky math to come up with a more detailed picture/model. The combination of the math and the fact that they only need one photon in a working apparatus makes this "special".
Most "poor" countries to which we send aid, are being plundered just as hard, or even harder. Every time we send food aid to some poor African or central American country, the local farmers get no money for the little food they produce and the local market is ruined, stopping local production of food instead of encouraging it.
Every time we demand the lowest price for all the stuff we import from those countries, we make them find ways to produce even cheaper, lowering the standard of life there. This results in pricing that is so low that our own economy can't compete and we put import taxes on these goods. This results in the foreign producers being forced to lower their prices even more, again ruining their economy and health.
Instead of "sending aid" every time a famine or natural disaster strikes one of these countries, we should stop plundering them. Micro credits for local businesses there have helped a lot, investing in farming for local food supply helps. These people are perfectly capable of helping themselves, given half a chance.
This may not be a unknown or "zero day" vulnerability, but it's quite a serious security problem. If The WiFi systems inside the EU buildings were not properly secured and known script-kiddie level attacks were possible, it's good that somebody came forward and proved that this is a real problem. Administrators were aware, or should have been and did not act.
Hacking accounts using MitM and selling the information to governments interested in this sort of information is what a black hat would have done. This guy just hacked a few accounts and then came forward to make certain that the obvious leak would be fixed. Just telling them would probably given a response of "That's not possible, because we use encrypted WiFi" or something similar. As far as we know, no secrets were revealed or leaked and no "private" e-mail was looked at, so there was no real damage.
Numbers for the latest generations have not been conclusive yet, since a lot of those are still in warranty and they could go up. There are strong indications they are in fact improving, but the statistics aren't precise enough to plot failure rates to the exact number of days or read/write actions the drives endured.
Even if they are improving, people will want to wait a while to see that this isn't a glitch, but actual improvement. OCZ will have to take a loss on their SSD drives for quite a long time to prove their reliability and have people restore their faith in them. Yes, that part is hype, but their reputation isn't based on hype.
The procedures she has been in have not found evidence of wrong-doing. That is something different than that it found evidence there was no wrong-doing. It's a lack of substantial evidence proving her right, no evidence proving her wrong has been found. This academical difference is crucial here, since legally she's wrong, but scientifically she can still be right.
I'd like to see the research she is disputing repeated by independent researchers. If a few repeat experiments are done, we'll get a good idea of who is actually right in this case without court action. In this case the law sees no evidence of wrong-doing, but science might at least prove the experiment was conducted wrong. Proving intent in publishing false results may still be hard, but at least the results will be nullified.
Tesla's under armor is quarter inch aluminum plating. The only way to seriously improve on that would be to put something engine sized, shaped and weighed in the front trunk to take the blow. There are a large number of disadvantages to do so, both in daily usage and in safety. The car would be way heavier and you'd have a large lump of metal causing all sorts fo hurt and damage in case of a frontal crash. You can armor a car against all sorts of conceivable harm, but there's a practical limit. I think that Tesla thought of these scenarios and weighed out all options and scenarios and came to this compromise for a reason.
So far, the Tesla cars have worked as designed. Flames coming out may seem scary, but in reality, nobody got hurt and costs haven't been that different when compared to a similarly sized and priced gasoline car in the same situation. These cars have some rather fundamental differences to gasoline cars and we have yet to come to terms with that. If you look at statistics for gasoline cars, which have rather low standard deviations, you'd see that they aren't exactly safe in comparable crashes, nor in fire hazard safety. Because of the low number of Teslas and the short time they are around, it's extremely hard to say something statistically about them yet. All we get to read about are three crashes where they caught fire due to the battery compartment getting pierced. We have no idea how they are going to hold in the first 100000 crashes they will have, ranging from fender benders to getting squashed between two large trailers or falling off a cliff. I'm sure we'll see some things where a Tesla will do worse than the average gasoline car in those circumstances, but we'll also be seeing situations where they will be doing better. Tesla have but a lot of thought to the design of their car and they have used the possibilities of rearranging the complete propulsion to improve on safety in a lot of cases. Their simulations and internal testing have proven their choices to be the safest compromise they could come up with. So far, real world crashes have not significantly changed their safety model. There probably will be incidents in the future where they can only say "we didn't think of that", but these fires aren't one of them.
Keep in mind, cars aren't designed to be safe, they are designed to be affordable, attractive, profitable and pass mandatory safety tests. Ralph Nadar changed that perspective momentarily, but we've only been going through small iterations in safety regulations since that. Car companies mostly have been improving as a reaction to those iterations. Only a few car companies have actively been improving their designs without the pressure of regulations or comparative crash tests. Most companies will only test cars to give good results in common tests that they know their vehicle will be rated on. Once they receive a good or excellent grade in those tests, they're done. They know how to improve safety on their vehicles, but they can't justify the cost of that because they won't be able to recuperate those in a higher sales price. A good example of this is Saab. They lost, because they couldn't make their cars competitively priced, even though they were safer in a lot of circumstances. People just aren't aware, or not prepared to pay for the extra safety. Maybe it's time another Ralph Nader would submit the 50 most popular cars on the road this day to a 55mph rear impact, or a t-bone. Even the regular sized dummies have a very low survival rate in such crashes. Car companies know how to make those crashes survivable, they prepare their race cars in such a way that almost always, inhabitants of those can just walk away from such crashes. Maybe they should start testing with real world testing dolls. Use the extremes of the human physique to test with so you can assume that anybody in between those extremes will be safe. A non-overweight 5.5-6ft doll might not get hurt in a crash, but over 50% of inhabitants of vehicles are so far from that, that they will get hurt in a sim
The things that the two Teslas that burned out hit would have totaled any comparable sized gasoline car, likely causing hurt to the people in the car and very likely created hazardous oil spills. The people inside the car would not have had the chance to drive the car to a safe location to get out safely, but would have had to leave the car in the middle of a busy road, if they would have been able to get out at all. The chance that more vehicles would have been crashed, possibly hitting the original vehicle is quite real in such a scenario. Maybe there wouldn't have been a fire with the gasoline cars in these situation, but in terms of hazard or financial damage, the gasoline cars would most likely have been less safe and more expensive in a similar situation. Cleanup of oil spills is a lot more expensive than just putting out a fire, even if it was an electric car fire.
The third Tesla was crashed by a drunk guy and almost the entire undercarriage was knocked off. That may have not caused a fire if it had been a gasoline car, but it most certainly was not road debris.
How about splitting the prize money based on an objective points system? You could add bonus money for the apps that score higher, subtract for apps that merely add features to an already existing app, so you'll only merit the improvements, not the whole app. It makes it ridiculously complicated to come up with a points system that isn't cheatable, but you could probably come up with something that's harder to doctor than it's worth.
Showing up in court, bringing a lawyer and all that would most likely cost way over $1000, regardless of what the case was or how much preparation was required. If the original photographer settled for an amount below that, which isn't that uncommon as a publishing fee for news photographs, they'd still be cheaper off than going to court and getting themselves off the hook.
In the USA, you usually can't get your own costs reimbursed for such a case, even if you win. In other countries, you often only get a predetermined fee which seldom covers the full costs but only a standard figure for the things your lawyer did for you. This makes going to court often not worth it, even if you're right, making justice something only the wealthy can afford....
It's in the same package, but not made in the same silicon or process. The package contains several pieces of silicon. Look at it as a miniature circuit board with several individual chips on it.
Trackers *are* blocked and taken offline all the time. That is, if there were any trackers left, most are gone. BitTorrent has different methods now to discover peers. PEX, DHT and LDP for peer discovery, Magnet links to replace .torrent files. You essentially can't block bittorrent without extremely "expensive" Deep Packet Inspection, essentially eavesdropping on every consumers internet traffic 100% of the time.