If the laser is 1 Watt, it probably draws a relatively low power (1.5 Watts? Not sure what the efficiency on this thing is). Seeing as there are multi-watt handheld flashlights, which are battery operated, why not this laser?
"Something that would be nice, is a power-source that feeds off its own emissions in order to ELIMINATE (not reduce) pollution in the environment."
Generally speaking, the 'waste' from a power generator is at a much lower state of potential energy than the input - the energy has already been extracted from it. Even if it hasn't, you quickly wind up with diminishing returns.
Say, for example, you have such a power-source that can extract more energy out of it's 'waste'. Let's say that with each pass, you extract 50% of the available energy.
So, after the first pass, you have extracted 50%, and 50% remains, you run another pass, and you get back 25% (of the original energy level), and 25% remains, do it again, and you get back 12.5% of the energy, with 12.5 remaining. Another pass, and you only get out 6.25% of the original energy, etc. So, you end up with a power plant that starts out producing a lot of power, and quickly dwindles down to almost no power output.
There is one sort of 'exception' to this, and it's not really an exception. There is a concept for fission nuclear power of a breeder reactor. For example, do a search sometime on "Integral Fast Reactor". The only reason it's an exception is that, currently, fission reactors are only able to extract energy from about 2% or 3% of the available uranium fuel. The breeder reactor concept uses neutrons released from the fission reaction to turn more of the Uranium into fissile material (mix of Uranium and Plutonium, and a few other elements). By using a reactor design that breeds the unused Uranium into more fissile material, we could increase the energy extraction efficiency from the current 2-3% up to something like 98 or 99%.
Still, the final, true waste produced by something like an IFR would have very little usable potential energy left.
As for biological energy sources, yes, there are people doing research on bacteria, algea, etc, trying to find ways to produce fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, bio-diesel) by feeding some sort of organic 'feedstock' to the organism, and have the organism produce fuel as it's 'waste' product. Heck, there's already been uses of methane (natural gas) for years that is produced out of things like landfills, by naturally occuring bacteria. Unfortunately, our landfills don't produce methane in quite the quantities necessary to meet national demand.
I'm quite sympathetic to your point, but I've been thinking about this, and I there is an argument in favor of at least some government spending (though I do agree that the three fellows mentioned in the article, between them, have access to a lot of money - something on the order of 50 or 100 Billion, that they themselves can invest).
However, when it comes to basic research on things like, for example, a viable fusion reactor design, I think I'd rather have that funded by the government, and then, if it yields the knowledge necessary to build economical fusion power plants, allow anyone with the necessary capital to build commercial reactors. If it's all tied up in patents by one company, that likely means deployment will be slower than it otherwise might be, and the costs to end-consumers of the energy, higher, than if you let anyone build them.
I can see there being some reasonably small patent fee to a company, if that company were involved in the taxpayer funded R&D (take, for example, EMC2 who are currently working on Navy contracts doing R&D on the Polywell fusion reactor design), because that company, even if funded by taxpayers to do the research, should have some stake in it's success (as far as I know, currently EMC2 doesn't make any profit off the R&D - all the money goes to salaries, materials and equipment costs, business overhead, etc).
But, my point is, by having taxpayer funding involved, it gives a legitimate place for the government to ensure that the technology produced is available widely, instead of one company having a monopoly control over it.
I'd rather that investors like Gates and GE spend their investment capital on things like building the manufacturing facilities necessary to produce the alternative energy tech once the designs are done, and for big utility companies to be able to invest in building infrastructure based on the results of the R&D. Continuing with the fusion analogy, let's say that EMC2 actually manages to succeed in developing a practical reactor design - it will still take many Billions of dollars in investment to get thousands of fusion reactors built around the world, and I'd like to see as many companies as possible participating in that build-out.
The "Taxpayer", will, hopefully, get 'reimbursed' in the form of much greater tax revenue as alternative energy sources ramp up (and, maybe, reduced enviromental and healthcare costs as a result of reduced global warming, pollution, etc).
I could see this being positive for a strong, stable democracy. For Afghanistan, this might just guarantee that a strong, stable democracy never develops, as various powers both inside and outside the country eye those resources.
I hope I'm wrong - having valuable exports could really help to build the economy of Afghanistan, of course, but there is a very real probability this will just become another "Oil Curse" nation (although, not oil, but who cares what the mineral resource is, as long as it's valuable, and basically 'free' to whoever has power, it will likely have the same effect).
Exactly my first thought. Then I thought, HP *must* be doing something to add some security so that only the owner, and friends/relatives specifically authorized by the owner, can send emails to the printer. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but nobody wants to waste $500+/mo on inkjet ink (which we all know is one of the most expensive substances in the world) and paper to print spam.
I doubt they'd require users to use public-key cryptography to verify their identity, but at the very least, they could setup some filters so it will only print emails from certain 'from' addresses. *Unfortunately*, half the spam I get appears to have come from my own email address (because, as we all know, anyone can forge the 'from' address, which I've always thought is a seriously *bad* deficiency of the current email standards - you don't even need every end-user to implement public-key cryptography to get stronger identity authentication - all you really need is for the mail servers to use cryptographic authentication between themselves to prove that an email claiming to be from domain example.com is actually *from* the example.com email server; the example.com server can take care of authenticating end-users with password or other means).
I too tend to think this is great news (in the long run). Yes, in the short term it might mean we pay higher prices. In the longer term, it means several things:
1) We're no longer benefiting from what was almost slave labor (in some cases, maybe stuff made in Asia really is made with true slave labor). Also, those third world countries usually have non-existent environmental protections or safety/OSHA-type laws. From a strictly moral standpoint, I kind of hate buying stuff made in third-world countries, because I feel like *I'm* exploiting those workers, putting them in danger, and polluting those countries. Unfortunately, it's hard to find stuff for sale anymore that *isn't* made in a third world country.
2) I think everyone benefits when no company can profit off poverty-wage labor, because in the long run, it lowers the income potential of everyone - because other companies which would pay higher wages and better benefits cannot afford to compete with the companies using poverty-wage labor.
3) It may mean that, long term, Chinese have more money to buy stuff from America, Canada, and Europe, so our trade imbalances become a little less lopsided.
4) Eventually, if the prevailing wages get close enough together, maybe U.S., Canadian, and European companies can once again compete with Chinese companies in manufacturing (I think we're still a pretty long way off from that, but I can hope). If you think about it, it's pretty absurd that manufactured products can be produced *so much cheaper* in China than the U.S. that they can pay to ship stuff 1/2 way around the world and still sell it 50% cheaper than stuff made in the U.S. that only has to be shipped a much shorter distance.
Of course, it's a bit more complex than that, but I'm glad to see worker incomes rising in China. I think that in time, as worker incomes improve, education levels will rise, and as that happens, there will be more pressure on the Chinese government and industries to enact better environmental and safety protections, bringing China more in line with law and practice in "G8" nations, which again will make it easier for us to compete with them. I just think, overall, it's a good thing. Good for them, right now, and good for us longer term.
I do agree that we'll probably see more cycles of manufacturer's just moving again to other countries, like the parent said, but I do think that eventually, most countries will be developed enough that there's less severe differences between the countries. Probably won't happen in my lifetime (it's taken China what, 50 years just to get to this point, and may take another 50 years to really have income levels, worker protection, and environmental protection that is comparable to the G8 nations. Probably take a few hundred years for the cycle to repeat itself in all the other third world nations.
I do think, though, that it is possible that the world might back-step, as the parent suggests is possible. I fear there is always going to be a 'worst country on Earth', that is so desperately poor that the people are very open to exploitation. Heck, the U.S. could seriously regress, given our massive public and private debts, and struggling economy. The U.S. maybe someday be the 'next China'.
That is, there might be a larger multi-generational cycle of development, rising standard of living, followed by de-development as industry moves somewhere cheaper, followed by debt, economic depression, and regression to 'third-world' status, though I sure hope not.
Or, it MIGHT NOT WORK for more than a month. "Made in the USA" is no guarantee of high quality. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, but there's a reason that the Detroit car makers lost so much business to Toyota and Honda in the 80's and 90's, and that was mostly driven by the public's perception of the *quality* of the "Japanese" vehicles (I put that in quotes because the cars sold in the U.S. are largely built in the U.S., even Toyotas and Hondas) vs. the "American" vehicles (Chrysler was owned by a German company for awhile, so, again, quotes around "American").
Yeah, but, conservative talk radio (and televisions) hosts are (figuratively) printing their own money. Last I heard, Rush, Glenn, and Fox News aren't hurting financially. Why would they need a bailout? They actually have business models that make money, and an audience willing to pay for their books, website 'premium subscriptions', t-shirts, etc.
While your point is mostly valid, I would point out that there is still a place for investigative journalism (which most people can't really do, at least well), and things like the D.C. press corps, who have a little bit more access to Representatives, Senators, Bureaucrats, Administration Officials, and the President, than the general public does.
Sure, 'citizen journalists' can do things like taking pictures of oil washing up on the beaches, but getting statements (and then fact-checking them with scientists, engineers, economists, and other 'experts) from Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, BP Reps, and politicians (both local Gulf Coast politicians, and Federal politicians) is something most 'citizens' don't (or can't) do.
This won't happen very quickly, but if HTML5 is basically capable of doing about everything Flash can, then I expect that Adobe will eventually just phase out the Flash player? Why? They don't make a nickel off the player - only the tools. Adobe has always been about the tools. While it will probably take some work to convert them, their developer tools should, it would seem like, be able to be modified to output HTML5+JS instead of Flash.
They can keep making money on having the best developer tools, while not having the costs of maintaining Flash.
There is one counter-argument, though, which might be persuasive to Adobe's management - they might not like being in a position of being 'just another vendor' in a level playing field where any company can develop HTML5 development tools. The control they have over Flash player does mean that they can kind of lock developers into their tools, instead of using someone else's tools.
Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.
'Hashing' the thumbprint doesn't really solve the problem, because it's *very* easy to get a thumbprint for someone - just grab a soda bottle or cup that they threw in a trash can, and lift the print off of it. If you have it, then you can hash it.
Also, another 'problem' with hashing (as applied to passwords *or* biometric data) is that, the hash becomes the password, effectively. If the only thing which ever gets transmitted over the network is the hash of your password, then I don't need to know the original password - I just need to know the correct hash value to transmit. You could maybe resolve that problem by having a dynamic salt - something added to the password/data which will change the resulting hash in a consistent way - e.g. the authentication server sends the salt value to the client, then they both compute a hash from the secret + salt (which will be different than hashing just the secret by itself), and the server compares what it computed to what the client computed. If you do the salting trick, then the only way to compute the correct hash is to have the original value that the hash is generated from, plus the salt. Old hashes will no longer be valid for subsequent logins.
The main problem, then in order for a salting scheme to work, you have to store the original password/data on the server so that you can recompute the new hash every time a login attempt is made.
Personally, I'm less worried about the 'privacy' of my thumbprint, and more worried that, generally, it's too *easy* to get my thumbprint.
While this probably isn't much of a worry with a school library checkout system, I'm worried that with something like a thumbprint, which never changes, eventually it gets too easy for someone to get access to your thumbprint and 'forge' authentication/authorization.
It's the same problem I have with the use of Social Security No.s - you start out life, and your SS # is basically secret - your parents know it, and it's in the SS Admin.'s computers. Right there, though, because it is in government computers, potentially thousands of people have access to it. Now, your parents sign you up for school, and they enter your SS # info into the local school district database. Then you get a savings account at the bank, and they ask for your SS #. You apply for jobs, and they ask for your social security number. You sign up for a credit card, or a checking account, an IRA, or an application for an apartment, and they ask for your Social Security number. You apply to college, and each college wants your SS#.
By the time your 25 or 30, your Social Security number is in dozens of different databases and millions of employees have access to those databases, and your SS # is basically worthless as a 'secret' which identifies you - it's no longer secret.
You could have the same problem with biometric identification (although at first glance, that might seem impossible), because, fundamentally, biometric information such as a fingerprint, retina scan, or DNA sequence, is reproducible data - ultimately, no system can guarantee that the actual finger or eye or DNA was scanned - all that the 'server' can verify is that the correct 'data' corresponding to previously recorded data, was transmitted over the network to the server. So, compromise a terminal (or setup a computer which masquerades as a valid 'terminal'), then send the correct 'data' from that terminal, and the server will assume that the user's thumb or retina was scanned.
I'm really can't offer any advice on a better alternative, but mark my words - if biometric identification becomes widespread, the identity thieves will not have too much difficulty adapting - as the biometric id becomes widespread, it will get harder and harder to keep the identification 'data' secret, and fraudsters will steal that data like any other bit of data, and misuse it.
The *real* security threat is that people will start to get a stronger and stronger belief in the 'infallibility' of such biometric identification, and so people will lose the ability to repudiate false authorizations. Juries and judges, if they have too strong of an assurance on the evidence provided by biometric identification, may produce verdicts/rulings which unjustly penalize innocent people.
They were sniffing OPEN, unencrypted networks. I don't think anyone should go to jail or even be sued for that. If you don't want people accessing your traffic, encrypt it. I mean, I could see the argument that if you used *any* kind of encryption, even WEP (which we all know is easily broken), then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if someone cracks the encryption, then they should be legally liable. But really, if you don't take any measures at all to protect your wireless network, then you have no expectation of privacy.
It's fair game for all the world, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything evil about that. That's like hooking your telephone speakerphone output up to a big-ass stereo, turning the volume way up, opening your windows, then complaining when passersby on the street hear your conversation.
Man, I know this is just railing at the wind, but I still gotta say it:
I hate when people try to apply a word by basically redefining it. Maybe it sucks that the government decided to scrap the program, but the government cannot commit treason against itself.
If the government decides to design and build a prototype of some new technology and *you* destroy it, IN AN ATTEMPT to undermine or weaken the government, *that's* treason.
If the government decides to design and build a prototype of some new technology, and the *government* decides to scrap the project because of either technological, economical, or even political reasons, that is NOT treason, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
Maybe if they blew it all on coke and hookers. If they bought real estate, boats, or other valuable assets, the government will probably seize them (at least in the case of the guy in the U.S. - the guys in the other country might get away with their share of the money).
I mean, really, is it *so hard* to create an online magazine? I never got the point of people downloading apps just to browse magazine articles and images. The web is pretty much designed for just that, so why not use it? PDF would work to, but I don't really see the point of not having it online? Maybe to allow you to download it and read it even if you don't have an Internet connection at the time you want to read (like, maybe, in-flight for example)? I suppose that might be a valid reason to want a pdf.
Doesn't the Heisenberg Principle only apply to sub-atomic particles?They were measuring a glass bead - it was small, but 'dust sized' is definitely larger than sub-atomic. What's the problem?
"china is already working on mass produced nuclear plants"
Wow. Is anyone else very afraid of the phrase "Chinese mass-produced nuclear plants"? That right there is a string of words I do not want to see in such close company.
Depending on how you define a "Nuclear" train, you could have a single, central, fixed location Nuclear power plant, and an electrified rail system (or wires, or a pair of superconducting rails, etc) to power the trains, so there's no reactor on the trains themselves - just electric motors, or maybe a mag-lev propulsion system, etc.
Seeing that EVE has already been around for what, 8 or 10 years? And is one of the only companies in Iceland making any money, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if Eve doesn't exist in 5 years, it's because Eyjafjallajökull blows up like Mt. St. Helens and all the employees were killed in the explosion.
One thing I've really wondered. . . Firefox is a great browser, but it seems like almost anyone creating a mobile phone, tablet pc, etc. has chosen Webkit instead of Gecko. Why did Apple decide it needed to take Konqueror and create Webkit in the first place, instead of just using Gecko? There must've been some reason - I'm sure they must have at least *looked* at Gecko before making a decision? Why did Google choose Webkit for Android and Chrome? Why is Webkit being used in all sort of places, but Gecko is only being used by Firefox and a couple other desktop web browsers?
Is there some technical deficiency with Gecko (too bloated, too memory intensive, too slow, too complicated/hard to develop for? Maybe it's a licensing issue, where other companies don't like the Mozilla license?
Galaxies are mostly empty space, right? (Well, ok, there's a lot of dust and rarified gas between star systems, I guess, and maybe lots of small stuff?) Could two Galaxies 'pass through' each other, and then keep on going, instead of merging? I mean, they would appear to be merged for a long long time, even if they could pass through, simply because it would take billions of years for them to pass through each other, right?
Or is gravity strong enough that if they begin to pass through each other, they will always become permanently entangled?
Sorry, had a brain glitch, and forgot to complete a paragraph. . .
Was Christianity important in shaping the worldview and beliefs of many of the revolutionaries? But was it really "what our country was founded on"? What does it even mean to say our country was founded on something? I should think the Declaration and Constitution give the clearest statement, to the extent you even *can* make a statement. Many many MANY people over the years migrated to the U.S. for all kinds of reasons. Religion was only one of those reasons, and even at the ratification of the Constitution in the 1790s, I'm sure there were lots of people who were looking for freedom, economic opportunity, or just to escape from wars or people trying to kill them in their old countries.
Slashdot Mirror
If the laser is 1 Watt, it probably draws a relatively low power (1.5 Watts? Not sure what the efficiency on this thing is). Seeing as there are multi-watt handheld flashlights, which are battery operated, why not this laser?
"Something that would be nice, is a power-source that feeds off its own emissions in order to ELIMINATE (not reduce) pollution in the environment."
Generally speaking, the 'waste' from a power generator is at a much lower state of potential energy than the input - the energy has already been extracted from it. Even if it hasn't, you quickly wind up with diminishing returns.
Say, for example, you have such a power-source that can extract more energy out of it's 'waste'. Let's say that with each pass, you extract 50% of the available energy.
So, after the first pass, you have extracted 50%, and 50% remains, you run another pass, and you get back 25% (of the original energy level), and 25% remains, do it again, and you get back 12.5% of the energy, with 12.5 remaining. Another pass, and you only get out 6.25% of the original energy, etc. So, you end up with a power plant that starts out producing a lot of power, and quickly dwindles down to almost no power output.
There is one sort of 'exception' to this, and it's not really an exception. There is a concept for fission nuclear power of a breeder reactor. For example, do a search sometime on "Integral Fast Reactor". The only reason it's an exception is that, currently, fission reactors are only able to extract energy from about 2% or 3% of the available uranium fuel. The breeder reactor concept uses neutrons released from the fission reaction to turn more of the Uranium into fissile material (mix of Uranium and Plutonium, and a few other elements). By using a reactor design that breeds the unused Uranium into more fissile material, we could increase the energy extraction efficiency from the current 2-3% up to something like 98 or 99%.
Still, the final, true waste produced by something like an IFR would have very little usable potential energy left.
As for biological energy sources, yes, there are people doing research on bacteria, algea, etc, trying to find ways to produce fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, bio-diesel) by feeding some sort of organic 'feedstock' to the organism, and have the organism produce fuel as it's 'waste' product. Heck, there's already been uses of methane (natural gas) for years that is produced out of things like landfills, by naturally occuring bacteria. Unfortunately, our landfills don't produce methane in quite the quantities necessary to meet national demand.
I'm quite sympathetic to your point, but I've been thinking about this, and I there is an argument in favor of at least some government spending (though I do agree that the three fellows mentioned in the article, between them, have access to a lot of money - something on the order of 50 or 100 Billion, that they themselves can invest).
However, when it comes to basic research on things like, for example, a viable fusion reactor design, I think I'd rather have that funded by the government, and then, if it yields the knowledge necessary to build economical fusion power plants, allow anyone with the necessary capital to build commercial reactors. If it's all tied up in patents by one company, that likely means deployment will be slower than it otherwise might be, and the costs to end-consumers of the energy, higher, than if you let anyone build them.
I can see there being some reasonably small patent fee to a company, if that company were involved in the taxpayer funded R&D (take, for example, EMC2 who are currently working on Navy contracts doing R&D on the Polywell fusion reactor design), because that company, even if funded by taxpayers to do the research, should have some stake in it's success (as far as I know, currently EMC2 doesn't make any profit off the R&D - all the money goes to salaries, materials and equipment costs, business overhead, etc).
But, my point is, by having taxpayer funding involved, it gives a legitimate place for the government to ensure that the technology produced is available widely, instead of one company having a monopoly control over it.
I'd rather that investors like Gates and GE spend their investment capital on things like building the manufacturing facilities necessary to produce the alternative energy tech once the designs are done, and for big utility companies to be able to invest in building infrastructure based on the results of the R&D. Continuing with the fusion analogy, let's say that EMC2 actually manages to succeed in developing a practical reactor design - it will still take many Billions of dollars in investment to get thousands of fusion reactors built around the world, and I'd like to see as many companies as possible participating in that build-out.
The "Taxpayer", will, hopefully, get 'reimbursed' in the form of much greater tax revenue as alternative energy sources ramp up (and, maybe, reduced enviromental and healthcare costs as a result of reduced global warming, pollution, etc).
I could see this being positive for a strong, stable democracy. For Afghanistan, this might just guarantee that a strong, stable democracy never develops, as various powers both inside and outside the country eye those resources.
I hope I'm wrong - having valuable exports could really help to build the economy of Afghanistan, of course, but there is a very real probability this will just become another "Oil Curse" nation (although, not oil, but who cares what the mineral resource is, as long as it's valuable, and basically 'free' to whoever has power, it will likely have the same effect).
I've got you one even better. You can just drink some embalming fluid - that should pretty much guarantee that you are 'preserved' forever.
Exactly my first thought. Then I thought, HP *must* be doing something to add some security so that only the owner, and friends/relatives specifically authorized by the owner, can send emails to the printer. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but nobody wants to waste $500+/mo on inkjet ink (which we all know is one of the most expensive substances in the world) and paper to print spam.
I doubt they'd require users to use public-key cryptography to verify their identity, but at the very least, they could setup some filters so it will only print emails from certain 'from' addresses. *Unfortunately*, half the spam I get appears to have come from my own email address (because, as we all know, anyone can forge the 'from' address, which I've always thought is a seriously *bad* deficiency of the current email standards - you don't even need every end-user to implement public-key cryptography to get stronger identity authentication - all you really need is for the mail servers to use cryptographic authentication between themselves to prove that an email claiming to be from domain example.com is actually *from* the example.com email server; the example.com server can take care of authenticating end-users with password or other means).
I too tend to think this is great news (in the long run). Yes, in the short term it might mean we pay higher prices. In the longer term, it means several things:
1) We're no longer benefiting from what was almost slave labor (in some cases, maybe stuff made in Asia really is made with true slave labor). Also, those third world countries usually have non-existent environmental protections or safety/OSHA-type laws. From a strictly moral standpoint, I kind of hate buying stuff made in third-world countries, because I feel like *I'm* exploiting those workers, putting them in danger, and polluting those countries. Unfortunately, it's hard to find stuff for sale anymore that *isn't* made in a third world country.
2) I think everyone benefits when no company can profit off poverty-wage labor, because in the long run, it lowers the income potential of everyone - because other companies which would pay higher wages and better benefits cannot afford to compete with the companies using poverty-wage labor.
3) It may mean that, long term, Chinese have more money to buy stuff from America, Canada, and Europe, so our trade imbalances become a little less lopsided.
4) Eventually, if the prevailing wages get close enough together, maybe U.S., Canadian, and European companies can once again compete with Chinese companies in manufacturing (I think we're still a pretty long way off from that, but I can hope). If you think about it, it's pretty absurd that manufactured products can be produced *so much cheaper* in China than the U.S. that they can pay to ship stuff 1/2 way around the world and still sell it 50% cheaper than stuff made in the U.S. that only has to be shipped a much shorter distance.
Of course, it's a bit more complex than that, but I'm glad to see worker incomes rising in China. I think that in time, as worker incomes improve, education levels will rise, and as that happens, there will be more pressure on the Chinese government and industries to enact better environmental and safety protections, bringing China more in line with law and practice in "G8" nations, which again will make it easier for us to compete with them. I just think, overall, it's a good thing. Good for them, right now, and good for us longer term.
I do agree that we'll probably see more cycles of manufacturer's just moving again to other countries, like the parent said, but I do think that eventually, most countries will be developed enough that there's less severe differences between the countries. Probably won't happen in my lifetime (it's taken China what, 50 years just to get to this point, and may take another 50 years to really have income levels, worker protection, and environmental protection that is comparable to the G8 nations. Probably take a few hundred years for the cycle to repeat itself in all the other third world nations.
I do think, though, that it is possible that the world might back-step, as the parent suggests is possible. I fear there is always going to be a 'worst country on Earth', that is so desperately poor that the people are very open to exploitation. Heck, the U.S. could seriously regress, given our massive public and private debts, and struggling economy. The U.S. maybe someday be the 'next China'.
That is, there might be a larger multi-generational cycle of development, rising standard of living, followed by de-development as industry moves somewhere cheaper, followed by debt, economic depression, and regression to 'third-world' status, though I sure hope not.
Or, it MIGHT NOT WORK for more than a month. "Made in the USA" is no guarantee of high quality. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, but there's a reason that the Detroit car makers lost so much business to Toyota and Honda in the 80's and 90's, and that was mostly driven by the public's perception of the *quality* of the "Japanese" vehicles (I put that in quotes because the cars sold in the U.S. are largely built in the U.S., even Toyotas and Hondas) vs. the "American" vehicles (Chrysler was owned by a German company for awhile, so, again, quotes around "American").
Yeah, but, conservative talk radio (and televisions) hosts are (figuratively) printing their own money. Last I heard, Rush, Glenn, and Fox News aren't hurting financially. Why would they need a bailout? They actually have business models that make money, and an audience willing to pay for their books, website 'premium subscriptions', t-shirts, etc.
While your point is mostly valid, I would point out that there is still a place for investigative journalism (which most people can't really do, at least well), and things like the D.C. press corps, who have a little bit more access to Representatives, Senators, Bureaucrats, Administration Officials, and the President, than the general public does.
Sure, 'citizen journalists' can do things like taking pictures of oil washing up on the beaches, but getting statements (and then fact-checking them with scientists, engineers, economists, and other 'experts) from Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, BP Reps, and politicians (both local Gulf Coast politicians, and Federal politicians) is something most 'citizens' don't (or can't) do.
This won't happen very quickly, but if HTML5 is basically capable of doing about everything Flash can, then I expect that Adobe will eventually just phase out the Flash player? Why? They don't make a nickel off the player - only the tools. Adobe has always been about the tools. While it will probably take some work to convert them, their developer tools should, it would seem like, be able to be modified to output HTML5+JS instead of Flash.
They can keep making money on having the best developer tools, while not having the costs of maintaining Flash.
There is one counter-argument, though, which might be persuasive to Adobe's management - they might not like being in a position of being 'just another vendor' in a level playing field where any company can develop HTML5 development tools. The control they have over Flash player does mean that they can kind of lock developers into their tools, instead of using someone else's tools.
Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Also, the Mexico-U.S. Border.
'Hashing' the thumbprint doesn't really solve the problem, because it's *very* easy to get a thumbprint for someone - just grab a soda bottle or cup that they threw in a trash can, and lift the print off of it. If you have it, then you can hash it.
Also, another 'problem' with hashing (as applied to passwords *or* biometric data) is that, the hash becomes the password, effectively. If the only thing which ever gets transmitted over the network is the hash of your password, then I don't need to know the original password - I just need to know the correct hash value to transmit. You could maybe resolve that problem by having a dynamic salt - something added to the password/data which will change the resulting hash in a consistent way - e.g. the authentication server sends the salt value to the client, then they both compute a hash from the secret + salt (which will be different than hashing just the secret by itself), and the server compares what it computed to what the client computed. If you do the salting trick, then the only way to compute the correct hash is to have the original value that the hash is generated from, plus the salt. Old hashes will no longer be valid for subsequent logins.
The main problem, then in order for a salting scheme to work, you have to store the original password/data on the server so that you can recompute the new hash every time a login attempt is made.
Personally, I'm less worried about the 'privacy' of my thumbprint, and more worried that, generally, it's too *easy* to get my thumbprint.
While this probably isn't much of a worry with a school library checkout system, I'm worried that with something like a thumbprint, which never changes, eventually it gets too easy for someone to get access to your thumbprint and 'forge' authentication/authorization.
It's the same problem I have with the use of Social Security No.s - you start out life, and your SS # is basically secret - your parents know it, and it's in the SS Admin.'s computers. Right there, though, because it is in government computers, potentially thousands of people have access to it. Now, your parents sign you up for school, and they enter your SS # info into the local school district database. Then you get a savings account at the bank, and they ask for your SS #. You apply for jobs, and they ask for your social security number. You sign up for a credit card, or a checking account, an IRA, or an application for an apartment, and they ask for your Social Security number. You apply to college, and each college wants your SS#.
By the time your 25 or 30, your Social Security number is in dozens of different databases and millions of employees have access to those databases, and your SS # is basically worthless as a 'secret' which identifies you - it's no longer secret.
You could have the same problem with biometric identification (although at first glance, that might seem impossible), because, fundamentally, biometric information such as a fingerprint, retina scan, or DNA sequence, is reproducible data - ultimately, no system can guarantee that the actual finger or eye or DNA was scanned - all that the 'server' can verify is that the correct 'data' corresponding to previously recorded data, was transmitted over the network to the server. So, compromise a terminal (or setup a computer which masquerades as a valid 'terminal'), then send the correct 'data' from that terminal, and the server will assume that the user's thumb or retina was scanned.
I'm really can't offer any advice on a better alternative, but mark my words - if biometric identification becomes widespread, the identity thieves will not have too much difficulty adapting - as the biometric id becomes widespread, it will get harder and harder to keep the identification 'data' secret, and fraudsters will steal that data like any other bit of data, and misuse it.
The *real* security threat is that people will start to get a stronger and stronger belief in the 'infallibility' of such biometric identification, and so people will lose the ability to repudiate false authorizations. Juries and judges, if they have too strong of an assurance on the evidence provided by biometric identification, may produce verdicts/rulings which unjustly penalize innocent people.
They were sniffing OPEN, unencrypted networks. I don't think anyone should go to jail or even be sued for that. If you don't want people accessing your traffic, encrypt it. I mean, I could see the argument that if you used *any* kind of encryption, even WEP (which we all know is easily broken), then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if someone cracks the encryption, then they should be legally liable. But really, if you don't take any measures at all to protect your wireless network, then you have no expectation of privacy.
It's fair game for all the world, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything evil about that. That's like hooking your telephone speakerphone output up to a big-ass stereo, turning the volume way up, opening your windows, then complaining when passersby on the street hear your conversation.
Man, I know this is just railing at the wind, but I still gotta say it:
I hate when people try to apply a word by basically redefining it. Maybe it sucks that the government decided to scrap the program, but the government cannot commit treason against itself.
If the government decides to design and build a prototype of some new technology and *you* destroy it, IN AN ATTEMPT to undermine or weaken the government, *that's* treason.
If the government decides to design and build a prototype of some new technology, and the *government* decides to scrap the project because of either technological, economical, or even political reasons, that is NOT treason, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
Stop trying to redefine the language.
Maybe if they blew it all on coke and hookers. If they bought real estate, boats, or other valuable assets, the government will probably seize them (at least in the case of the guy in the U.S. - the guys in the other country might get away with their share of the money).
I mean, really, is it *so hard* to create an online magazine? I never got the point of people downloading apps just to browse magazine articles and images. The web is pretty much designed for just that, so why not use it? PDF would work to, but I don't really see the point of not having it online? Maybe to allow you to download it and read it even if you don't have an Internet connection at the time you want to read (like, maybe, in-flight for example)? I suppose that might be a valid reason to want a pdf.
Doesn't the Heisenberg Principle only apply to sub-atomic particles?They were measuring a glass bead - it was small, but 'dust sized' is definitely larger than sub-atomic. What's the problem?
"china is already working on mass produced nuclear plants"
Wow. Is anyone else very afraid of the phrase "Chinese mass-produced nuclear plants"? That right there is a string of words I do not want to see in such close company.
Depending on how you define a "Nuclear" train, you could have a single, central, fixed location Nuclear power plant, and an electrified rail system (or wires, or a pair of superconducting rails, etc) to power the trains, so there's no reactor on the trains themselves - just electric motors, or maybe a mag-lev propulsion system, etc.
Seeing that EVE has already been around for what, 8 or 10 years? And is one of the only companies in Iceland making any money, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if Eve doesn't exist in 5 years, it's because Eyjafjallajökull blows up like Mt. St. Helens and all the employees were killed in the explosion.
One thing I've really wondered. . . Firefox is a great browser, but it seems like almost anyone creating a mobile phone, tablet pc, etc. has chosen Webkit instead of Gecko. Why did Apple decide it needed to take Konqueror and create Webkit in the first place, instead of just using Gecko? There must've been some reason - I'm sure they must have at least *looked* at Gecko before making a decision? Why did Google choose Webkit for Android and Chrome? Why is Webkit being used in all sort of places, but Gecko is only being used by Firefox and a couple other desktop web browsers?
Is there some technical deficiency with Gecko (too bloated, too memory intensive, too slow, too complicated/hard to develop for? Maybe it's a licensing issue, where other companies don't like the Mozilla license?
Anyone have insight into this?
Galaxies are mostly empty space, right? (Well, ok, there's a lot of dust and rarified gas between star systems, I guess, and maybe lots of small stuff?) Could two Galaxies 'pass through' each other, and then keep on going, instead of merging? I mean, they would appear to be merged for a long long time, even if they could pass through, simply because it would take billions of years for them to pass through each other, right?
Or is gravity strong enough that if they begin to pass through each other, they will always become permanently entangled?
Sorry, had a brain glitch, and forgot to complete a paragraph. . .
Was Christianity important in shaping the worldview and beliefs of many of the revolutionaries? But was it really "what our country was founded on"? What does it even mean to say our country was founded on something? I should think the Declaration and Constitution give the clearest statement, to the extent you even *can* make a statement. Many many MANY people over the years migrated to the U.S. for all kinds of reasons. Religion was only one of those reasons, and even at the ratification of the Constitution in the 1790s, I'm sure there were lots of people who were looking for freedom, economic opportunity, or just to escape from wars or people trying to kill them in their old countries.