Before we start bitching about Blu-Ray, it's worthwhile to note that HD-DVD has (had, anyway) similar power requirements. From an Engadget article (emphasis mine):
For all the back and forth "we're better than you" rhetoric exchanged between the parties, the two really aren't that different. Both offer the same array of codecs and are driven by very similar power requirements. Essentially (and without intending any slight towards the HD DVD camp), anything an HD DVD player can do, a Blu-ray can do also.
What are the implications of abolishing software patents? Weigh the possible advantages and disadvantages against the (questionable) advantages and (severe) disadvantages of the current system.
Okay, why does typing on the Optimus suck, you ask? Well, although the keyboard uses mechanical switches and a lot of high quality components (evident when we pulled off some keys), and there is some clicky tactility to keypresses, as a whole it just requires way too much force to depress keys. And the larger the key, the more force is required, so enter is easier than space, but harder than tab. Let's put it this way, we sit around and type all day long and this thing wore us out in about 30 seconds to a minute. Carpal sufferers, beware.
So, the keyboard is painfully inadequate at doing the one thing keyboards are suppodes to be doing: data input. Kinda like a solid gold mouse that won't track, or a 80-inch monitor that won't display better than 800x600. Pretty pointless.
Service providers say what the government wants them to do would be like asking the Royal Mail to monitor the contents of every envelope posted.
It's going to get even worse. Imagine asking the Royal Mail to monitor the contents of every envelope posted, after half of the mail writers get tired of these draconian measures and start sending their messages in code.
What if P2P users start encrypting their traffic? The difficulties involved would be significant, but not insurmountable. Are the ISPs supposed to treat every user transmitting & receiving encrypted data as a criminal?
True, but that's $5,000/year vs. $36,500/year ($100/day) with their existing model. Even with paying landowners a premium, they still would come out ahead.
You know, it is possible to route aircraft around areas... Aircraft generally don't fly hither and yon, wherever they please...they adhere to approved flight plans.
It seems that if this company simply tethered their balloons to the ground, they could minimize losses, and thus could afford to deploy far more robust balloons, which could last significantly longer than 24 hours. If a balloon exceeds its life span, sustains damage, or requires maintenance or updates to its payload, it could simply be reeled in as a replacement is reeled out.
First, can you provide a link that states this conclusively? Hydrazine propellant tanks are also made of steel, coated with titanium or other metals to prevent corrosion.
Second, even if the tank didn't melt, it would still undergo structural failure at some point due to the terrific pressure hydrazine would generate at those temperatures. And as soon as the containment failed, the hydrazine would begin to decompose. Since it is a monopropellant, it wouldn't need the presence of another gas for this reaction to commence, and the entire tankful would break down in short order.
First, the Columbia hydrazine tank was part of the Columbia...a shuttle. The satellite tank was part of an object that was never designed to survive reentry.
Second, the hydrazine tank on the Columbia was shielded from the worst of the reentry temperatures. The Columbia didn't lose integrity and break up until well into the atmosphere.
Third, the tank was found ruptured.
There's nothing 'similar' about the two scenarios, and the Columbia tank ruptured anyway.
Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived and were recovered intact on the ground.
Columbia was a shuttle. We're not talking about a shuttle here. We're talking about a satellite that was never designed to withstand reentry.
On the other hand, is there any downside to attempting to destroy the satellite? If there is a potential advantage, but no disadvantage, the logical thing is to shoot it down.
I'm not claiming that the satellite should not have been shot down. I am claiming that the stated reason for doing so is demonstrably false.
Hydrazine has a boiling point of 113.5 degrees Celsius. Reentry temperatures typically reach 1400 degrees Celsius. Steel melts around 1370 degrees Celsius.
Still wanna try to claim that tank would survive reentry?
It still had a full load of hydrazine, which is poisonous.
Just need to reiterate: the danger from the hydrazine was essentially ZERO. Hydrazine is remarkably unstable. It would have been the first thing to be destroyed upon reentry, just as soon as the tank ruptured or a hose broke loose.
As the summary noted, this is something that people have known about for a very long time. More specifically, this same subject was being discussed on the same website almost eight years ago.
I wonder how well this technology could be adapted for other applications, such as detecting contraband in travelers' luggage, or detecting explosives. Perhaps for detecting survivors or casualties during disasters?
Could we be seeing the demise of the drug/bomb sniffing dog with this new tech?
Claudio Santambrogio, an Opera desktop developer, said the Mozilla team notified it of a security issue only a day before publishing an advisory. This gave the Norwegian software developers insufficient time to make an evaluation. "They did not wait for us to come back with an ETA for a fix: they kept their bug reports containing the details of the exploits closed to the public for a few days, and now opened most of them to everybody," Santambrogio writes.
I'm finding it a bit difficult to feel bad for Opera. Exactly how long does it take to "evaluate" a security issue, especially when someone else goes to the trouble of finding it in the first place, and then notifies you of the issue?
Opera had ample opportunity to roll out a fix...but they dragged their feet (as is their habit). This time, their habit got them burned. Perhaps next time they'll take a notification of a security issue more seriously.
Periods of high activity (REM) where associated with dynamic behaviors (flying, scared, etc.) and low activity with more subtle ones (gesturing, looking around, etc.). The "behaviors" the robot demonstrates are some of the actions I might do (along with everyone else) in a dream.
"Might" do? So, if I'm experiencing high-activity REM, I might be flying...or I might be scared? There's a big difference between those two activities (well, alt least there is for me).
It sounds like Fernando Orellana and Brendan Burns have created a robot whose function is to speculate wildly on what someone might have been dreaming.
Big deal. I can do that right now, and I can do it for free.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean innovations like this?
What are the implications of abolishing software patents? Weigh the possible advantages and disadvantages against the (questionable) advantages and (severe) disadvantages of the current system.
So, the keyboard is painfully inadequate at doing the one thing keyboards are suppodes to be doing: data input. Kinda like a solid gold mouse that won't track, or a 80-inch monitor that won't display better than 800x600. Pretty pointless.
It's going to get even worse. Imagine asking the Royal Mail to monitor the contents of every envelope posted, after half of the mail writers get tired of these draconian measures and start sending their messages in code.
What if P2P users start encrypting their traffic? The difficulties involved would be significant, but not insurmountable. Are the ISPs supposed to treat every user transmitting & receiving encrypted data as a criminal?
I believe BlueTooth's max transmission rate is 2.1 Mb/sec (for BlueTooth 2.0). 5 Gb/sec > 2.1 Mb/sec.
USB 1.1 adapters are pretty cheap, too...how much are they being used today?
True, but that's $5,000/year vs. $36,500/year ($100/day) with their existing model. Even with paying landowners a premium, they still would come out ahead.
You know, it is possible to route aircraft around areas... Aircraft generally don't fly hither and yon, wherever they please...they adhere to approved flight plans.
It seems that if this company simply tethered their balloons to the ground, they could minimize losses, and thus could afford to deploy far more robust balloons, which could last significantly longer than 24 hours. If a balloon exceeds its life span, sustains damage, or requires maintenance or updates to its payload, it could simply be reeled in as a replacement is reeled out.
First, can you provide a link that states this conclusively? Hydrazine propellant tanks are also made of steel, coated with titanium or other metals to prevent corrosion.
Second, even if the tank didn't melt, it would still undergo structural failure at some point due to the terrific pressure hydrazine would generate at those temperatures. And as soon as the containment failed, the hydrazine would begin to decompose. Since it is a monopropellant, it wouldn't need the presence of another gas for this reaction to commence, and the entire tankful would break down in short order.
http://www.stormingmedia.us/40/4026/A402640.html
Completely different scenario, chuckles.
First, the Columbia hydrazine tank was part of the Columbia...a shuttle. The satellite tank was part of an object that was never designed to survive reentry.
Second, the hydrazine tank on the Columbia was shielded from the worst of the reentry temperatures. The Columbia didn't lose integrity and break up until well into the atmosphere.
Third, the tank was found ruptured.
There's nothing 'similar' about the two scenarios, and the Columbia tank ruptured anyway.
Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived and were recovered intact on the ground.
Columbia was a shuttle. We're not talking about a shuttle here. We're talking about a satellite that was never designed to withstand reentry.
On the other hand, is there any downside to attempting to destroy the satellite? If there is a potential advantage, but no disadvantage, the logical thing is to shoot it down.
I'm not claiming that the satellite should not have been shot down. I am claiming that the stated reason for doing so is demonstrably false.
Hydrazine has a boiling point of 113.5 degrees Celsius. Reentry temperatures typically reach 1400 degrees Celsius. Steel melts around 1370 degrees Celsius.
Still wanna try to claim that tank would survive reentry?
It still had a full load of hydrazine, which is poisonous.
Just need to reiterate: the danger from the hydrazine was essentially ZERO. Hydrazine is remarkably unstable. It would have been the first thing to be destroyed upon reentry, just as soon as the tank ruptured or a hose broke loose.
When I'm driving, I only really notice things that move.
What are you, a T-Rex? ^_^
As the summary noted, this is something that people have known about for a very long time. More specifically, this same subject was being discussed on the same website almost eight years ago.
Link in parent is malicious. Do not click.
I wonder how well this technology could be adapted for other applications, such as detecting contraband in travelers' luggage, or detecting explosives. Perhaps for detecting survivors or casualties during disasters?
Could we be seeing the demise of the drug/bomb sniffing dog with this new tech?
Super-Sweaty Ballmer! Now with Mega-Chair-Throwing action (TM)! Pull the string and hear Super-Sweaty Ballmer say one of the following action phrases:
- "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
- "Woooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!"
- "I'm going to f**king KILL Google!"
Supplies are limited, so place your order now!
A good list of NP-complete problems can be found here.
I'm finding it a bit difficult to feel bad for Opera. Exactly how long does it take to "evaluate" a security issue, especially when someone else goes to the trouble of finding it in the first place, and then notifies you of the issue?
Opera had ample opportunity to roll out a fix...but they dragged their feet (as is their habit). This time, their habit got them burned. Perhaps next time they'll take a notification of a security issue more seriously.
"Might" do? So, if I'm experiencing high-activity REM, I might be flying...or I might be scared? There's a big difference between those two activities (well, alt least there is for me).
It sounds like Fernando Orellana and Brendan Burns have created a robot whose function is to speculate wildly on what someone might have been dreaming.
Big deal. I can do that right now, and I can do it for free.
Nice. ^_^
I believe I said "Good day, sir".