If you've got some marvelous solution on how to block out arbitrary radio interference, patent the damn thing and make billions. I'm sure
the airlines would be one of your first customers.
Umm... ok... enclose the cabin in a faraday cage. Signals won't go in or out. The aircraft is already a metal cylinder. Put wire mesh like that in a microwave window across the windows inside the acrylic and ground it to the plane, between the cockpit and cabin add a layer of metal foil to the door and bulkhead. Same at the back of the passenger cabin right behind the toilets. One more layer under the floor and you're good to go. Passengers can't hear radio signals from outside, and your radar and other equipment can't hear the signals generated inside the cabin.
Plugging some numbers into a wireless link calculator, I find that two towers would have to be about 38 miles high to see each other above the radio horizon. (Don't forget you need to take into account the fresnel zone.) A more realistic height of 150' yields 38 towers at 54 km apart, 33 towers 62 km apart at 200', 26 towers 80 km apart at 100 meters high, or 8 towers 252 km apart at 1km high.
Overall, I'd say putting a satellite constellation (say, 4 satellites so one's always visible) in non-equatorial orbit would be one plan, and a wire to a spot where at least 2 geostationary satellites are visible would be the other. Wireless links won't cut it here. Even if you could put a couple of the towers on specially picked mountains, you'd still have too much possibility of failure.
On the other hand, and in an off the wall comment, if I were doing this, I'd include in the contract a requirement for an elliptical 1m wide, 1.25m high space running the length of the inside of the conduit. Its going to be a huge conduit already, might as well make it multi-purpose, right? Imagine being able to just hit the antarctic coast and taking a tube-shuttle from the coast to the station. Wheee!!!
Since this is doubtless running continually whether we want it to or not, it's running out. So it's not batteries per se, but a question of the half life of the element in question.
I'm sure it must be mentioned elsewhere, but I don't see it... It isn't an issue of the half life of the element, but rather the lifespan of the thermocouples. The half life of plutonium could probably power this craft for quite a few years past 2020. The thermocouples, however, have a known degradation rate and therefore their failure rate (or point at which their power production falls below that required to run the craft) is known and can be fixed at 2020. (Roughly, at least.)
notice that they also asked that research not be put under GPL-like licenses, under the assumption that government-funded research should be resold afterwards
I personally read that as an assumption that government-funded research should not be encumbered by a license which prevented their use in a closed source proprietary system, which is closer to what the text says. This to me says the code should be on a BSD license. Make it free, but let anyone steal all or part of it. (Which I'm ok with, actually. It doesn't hurt anyone for publicly written code to be used in that way, provided it is still available to the rest of us on the same license.)
Oh please. Even if the reactor is made 100% safe so that a skyscraper impact spreads no radiation, how do you
prevent the plane from being hijacked and flown to an "axis of evil" nation that wants to get its hands on the
plutonium?
A nuclear power plant typically uses a less potent radioisotope, which is less likely to be refinable into a weapons-grade material. In addition, it would tend to be embedded in some sort of capsule of material that you'd have to extract the higher-potency material from before it would be of any use as a weapon. It would be far more useful as a "dirty bomb" than it would as a nuclear weapon, even though a "dirty bomb" made out of enough to run a 747 wouldn't actually hurt anybody. The radiation would likely barely exceed background radiation, and then possibly not by a detectable amount.
Reading through the report, I see that in every phase of production a different fuel is accounted for. Overall, the production uses Diesel, LPG, Coal, etc... My question is, why not use corn products in this capacity? At the very least, the mills producing the ethanol and byproducts such as corn oil have an already existing source of energy already on hand. Corn oil is very similar to diesel fuel, and can be burned in a modified diesel engine. Ethanol, naturally, is a fuel in its own right or we wouldn't be talking about it. Couldn't the mills reduce their own fuel costs by using the freshly generated corn fuels to power themselves? Also, sell them back to the farmer producing the corn at a preferential rate. After all, if you're producing millions of gallons of the stuff, surely it would be more efficient to put some in a holding tank and cycle it back in than to sell it, have it trucked around, and have some coal trucked back for your furnace. All that trucking is part of what increases the embodied energy, and reduces its own energy value.
They say keep it secure and don't behave like an idiot. They also do basic scanning for things like open relays.
That's a new AUP page, the last time I looked it was entirely different! All I have to say is... YAY! Ok, I'm happy now, as long as my servers are secure & I'm not wasting their bandwidth I'm good.
These people are buying T1s for hundreds of dollars a month, then selling us a lousy 3Mbps for $80/mo. That's a rediculous amount of profit!
Yes, since a T1 can take 1.5Mbps and cost $800/month and they're offering a 3Mpbs nondedicated circuit for $80/month. Huge profit, yes. Lets see, then, they'd need 2 T1's for that bandwidth, for $1600, and 20 users just to pay for the bandwidth, all sharing it.
AT&T Broadband said UltraLink will serve power users, which it described as those who have "set up home networks, send or receive large files such as when downloading software, or enjoy other bandwidth-intensive applications."
Why must providers always assume that someone who sets up a home network is a bandwidth hog? Personally, I have several computers on my home network. However, none of them hog bandwidth unless I'm downloading a system upgrade. It just happens that the best way to have everyone able to access e-mail and surf at once is to network the computers. (Duh)
I'm on Time Warner Cable, and they prohibit servers. If they were to enforce that prohibition, would that mean their bandwidth usage would go down? I doubt it. How much e-mail does a normal, non-spamming personal e-mail server handle in a day? Come to think of it, the traffic isn't any more than I'd handle if I had to POP it all at once!
Department of Commerce? Don't you mean Ministry of Commerce? Or some other country? Remember, the Internet shouldn't be run by a country.
Oh, the parent quite clearly meant Department of Commerce, as in the US DoC. As I recall, ICANN was chartered by the US DOC, therefore if they were to fail to execute their contract, ownership would fall back to the US DOC. Should the Internet be an international non-political entity? Sure, but I don't think anyone has enough crack to actually believe that will ever happen. At best the US will charter an organisation that has elected representation of the largest internet-using countries as well as a number of unaffiliated representatives.
Why not project onto the inside of a partially-reflective sunglasses lens?
That's exactly what I've been waiting for, too. Of course, at this point I'd be happy with anything that a) has a reasonable price tag ( $500), b) doesn't look like I'm wearing a fighter jet flight helmet, and c) gives me a useful resolution (at least vga). With that, I'd go wearable *very* quickly. (I.e., as soon as I could save the funds.)
Can applescript handle running 1000 concurrent users from a desktop machine simulating 1000 concurrent users hitting the server?
What he needs is a load test and functional test product similar to Rational's, but cross-platform. I'd suggest looking into Mercury Interactive's software, though I'm not sure just how cross-platform it is.
I like the letter, its tone is reasonably professional though you might want to run it by some laypeople (i.e., non-computer friends) to figure out some better phrasing on the clauses where you're trying to incite people to be angry and take action. They don't flow quite well enough and I think the layperson might not quite grasp the situation.
The hypocracy of such a bill is stunning.
Oh, and please, please, run it through a spell checker first. Spelling errors like hypocracy (hypocrisy) make the educated readers of the newspaper wince, and every time one of them does, they count your opinion for just a little less (whether they should or not).
One of the "exceptions" listed to the immunity (i.e. if this condition is tripped, then they ARE liable) is:
(C) causes economic loss of more than $50 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contains works which the owner has exclusive rights granted under section 106;
So if you managed to place the files in question on a server which also had some commercial purpose (say, hosting images for an eBay auction) might this trip the $50 limit and allow prosecution or civil action? I am only the son of a lawyer and not one myself, but this seems like a low threshhold for such a bill
Two issues with that.
First, most of the users of p2p networks are home users who don't really do much other than play games, music, and otherwise entertain themselves. To the majority of users affected by this, it would actually be fairly difficult to claim $50 in damages.
Second, the way this law reads, as long as the MPAA's lynch mob reported the attacks to the government 7 days in advance and could claim that they reasonably expected they would only be hitting computers containing works violating their copyright, they could crash and burn any machine they wanted. Note that the bill clearly states that economic loss is limited to dollars. If they crash my hdd and I lose all the photos I haven't backed up to cd yet, there's no economic loss so I don't have cause to charge them criminally or sue them.
In addition, read d.1.a on page 5, which says you can't even seek recompense if your economic loss is less than $250. Thus, chances are my hardware damaged by such an attack, such as a hdd, won't even be of sufficient cost to seek damages.
Overall, I'd say this is vigilante justice of a type long frowned upon in this country.
If you currently have any domains registered by Verisign, immediately change to a different registrant and notify Verisign's customer service department as to exactly why you are doing it.
But first, before you do that, you should read the article so you know that verisign was mentioned because it tried something similar with domain names, and is not involved in this at all. The company actually causing grief here is Comodo. (Though why anyone would name their company so close to commode I don't know. I'd feel like I was flushing money down the toilet everytime I dealt with them.)
It is also considered NE corridor (or close to it) and they can probably suck in a lot of people who have been downsized/lost here due to the horrible economical situations of late. Many people probably wouldnt relocate to California or Texas, but might move an hour west to be in Albany from NYC.
Um... actually, you'd move 3 hours north to be in Albany. (Or 2.5, depending on how fast you drive):) My wife's dad works in NYC and lives 2 hours south, and he takes the train in from where he lives. Also, if you want to live just north of Poughkeepsie, an hour south of Albany, you can catch the commuter train into NYC or commute up to Albany if it isn't snowing too hard. Very centrally located, and IBM has a research center there.
Why are they so excited about a location that is over 100 miles from their nearest constituent company (IBM)?
Don't forget there are a few good colleges around here. Among them is RPI, which I recall being one of the first to get a chip going over 1GHz (1.2 GHz if I recall, before it melted). Add to that SUNY Albany, which is a pretty good state school, and there's GE Power Systems down the street, as well as Plug Power (Fuel Cell developers). Quite a few technical developments have come out of this area.
2. The biggest problem MS faces, security, is pretty much non existant for this implimentation. Who is going to hack a volvo? Not only from the sense of there being no means, motive, or opportunity, who the hell would want to 'hack' a volvo? how anti-l33t can you get?
You apparently don't know enough Volvo enthusiasts. Some will even go so far as to put a V-8 engine in their "brick", just for fun.
We want media with the same diameter as a CD/DVD from here on out whenever possible. Why? They're easy to keep track of...
Speak for yourself, bub. CD's have a really crappy form factor. They're too big to fit inside a pocket, need specially designed carrying cases, and have crappy latency characteristics. Give me a non-rotating piece of storage the size of a credit card. These would fit in standard-sized pockets, we already have specialized carrying cases for them (called wallets), and they wouldn't have the rotational latency issues. Now all we need is the density...
What about business card sized? Do the same form factor with this optical technology as is already done with cd, and assuming the same 50:670 data capacity ratio you'll get 76GB of storage space on a business card sized disk. Would that take care of your needs? That'd be about 116 raw cd's, or 600 high quality encoded cd's.
However, it is considered pedophilla under the law, and by many societal conventions.
I won't even go into the emotional problems when girls have sex at that age.
Neither will I, but that's because I can't think of any that aren't shared by women of 25 or even 35 having a first experience. At 16, the ability of an individual to handle sexual issues has developed sufficiently to rest solely on an individual's mental state. Roughly around that age, an individual seems to reach a state that they could be at for years. A person that couldn't deal well with sexuality at 16 doesn't seem well equipped to handle it at 25 or 35, either. Under 14 there's really no understanding of sexual issues, between 14-16 things fall into place as much as the will, and after that it depends more on environment during the person's upbringing than some ingrained state. I can't think of anything tha happens to a person after puberty completes that would change their ability to handle sex.
I'm still not sure where the magical '18' comes from, or '21' for that matter. Nothing really interesting happens then, it just happens that, statistically speaking, an individual is more likely to have enough life experience to handle tough issues than not. And even that's a fairly arbitrary inflection point.
Of course, I also think the way we raise our children explicitly forces them into emotional problems when they finally come to address their sexuality.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... ok... enclose the cabin in a faraday cage. Signals won't go in or out. The aircraft is already a metal cylinder. Put wire mesh like that in a microwave window across the windows inside the acrylic and ground it to the plane, between the cockpit and cabin add a layer of metal foil to the door and bulkhead. Same at the back of the passenger cabin right behind the toilets. One more layer under the floor and you're good to go. Passengers can't hear radio signals from outside, and your radar and other equipment can't hear the signals generated inside the cabin.
Overall, I'd say putting a satellite constellation (say, 4 satellites so one's always visible) in non-equatorial orbit would be one plan, and a wire to a spot where at least 2 geostationary satellites are visible would be the other. Wireless links won't cut it here. Even if you could put a couple of the towers on specially picked mountains, you'd still have too much possibility of failure.
On the other hand, and in an off the wall comment, if I were doing this, I'd include in the contract a requirement for an elliptical 1m wide, 1.25m high space running the length of the inside of the conduit. Its going to be a huge conduit already, might as well make it multi-purpose, right? Imagine being able to just hit the antarctic coast and taking a tube-shuttle from the coast to the station. Wheee!!!
I'm sure it must be mentioned elsewhere, but I don't see it... It isn't an issue of the half life of the element, but rather the lifespan of the thermocouples. The half life of plutonium could probably power this craft for quite a few years past 2020. The thermocouples, however, have a known degradation rate and therefore their failure rate (or point at which their power production falls below that required to run the craft) is known and can be fixed at 2020. (Roughly, at least.)
I personally read that as an assumption that government-funded research should not be encumbered by a license which prevented their use in a closed source proprietary system, which is closer to what the text says. This to me says the code should be on a BSD license. Make it free, but let anyone steal all or part of it. (Which I'm ok with, actually. It doesn't hurt anyone for publicly written code to be used in that way, provided it is still available to the rest of us on the same license.)
Reading through the report, I see that in every phase of production a different fuel is accounted for. Overall, the production uses Diesel, LPG, Coal, etc... My question is, why not use corn products in this capacity? At the very least, the mills producing the ethanol and byproducts such as corn oil have an already existing source of energy already on hand. Corn oil is very similar to diesel fuel, and can be burned in a modified diesel engine. Ethanol, naturally, is a fuel in its own right or we wouldn't be talking about it. Couldn't the mills reduce their own fuel costs by using the freshly generated corn fuels to power themselves? Also, sell them back to the farmer producing the corn at a preferential rate. After all, if you're producing millions of gallons of the stuff, surely it would be more efficient to put some in a holding tank and cycle it back in than to sell it, have it trucked around, and have some coal trucked back for your furnace. All that trucking is part of what increases the embodied energy, and reduces its own energy value.
Oh, in that case, citizens needn't worry. A good percentage of them will be lost anyways, pretty quickly.
That's a new AUP page, the last time I looked it was entirely different! All I have to say is... YAY! Ok, I'm happy now, as long as my servers are secure & I'm not wasting their bandwidth I'm good.
Yes, since a T1 can take 1.5Mbps and cost $800/month and they're offering a 3Mpbs nondedicated circuit for $80/month. Huge profit, yes. Lets see, then, they'd need 2 T1's for that bandwidth, for $1600, and 20 users just to pay for the bandwidth, all sharing it.
Which looks great, if you're in their limited service area. Unfortunately, most of the AT&T customers aren't. I wish I was, though.
Why must providers always assume that someone who sets up a home network is a bandwidth hog? Personally, I have several computers on my home network. However, none of them hog bandwidth unless I'm downloading a system upgrade. It just happens that the best way to have everyone able to access e-mail and surf at once is to network the computers. (Duh)
I'm on Time Warner Cable, and they prohibit servers. If they were to enforce that prohibition, would that mean their bandwidth usage would go down? I doubt it. How much e-mail does a normal, non-spamming personal e-mail server handle in a day? Come to think of it, the traffic isn't any more than I'd handle if I had to POP it all at once!
Oh, the parent quite clearly meant Department of Commerce, as in the US DoC. As I recall, ICANN was chartered by the US DOC, therefore if they were to fail to execute their contract, ownership would fall back to the US DOC. Should the Internet be an international non-political entity? Sure, but I don't think anyone has enough crack to actually believe that will ever happen. At best the US will charter an organisation that has elected representation of the largest internet-using countries as well as a number of unaffiliated representatives.
That's exactly what I've been waiting for, too. Of course, at this point I'd be happy with anything that a) has a reasonable price tag ( $500), b) doesn't look like I'm wearing a fighter jet flight helmet, and c) gives me a useful resolution (at least vga). With that, I'd go wearable *very* quickly. (I.e., as soon as I could save the funds.)
What he needs is a load test and functional test product similar to Rational's, but cross-platform. I'd suggest looking into Mercury Interactive's software, though I'm not sure just how cross-platform it is.
I like the letter, its tone is reasonably professional though you might want to run it by some laypeople (i.e., non-computer friends) to figure out some better phrasing on the clauses where you're trying to incite people to be angry and take action. They don't flow quite well enough and I think the layperson might not quite grasp the situation.
Oh, and please, please, run it through a spell checker first. Spelling errors like hypocracy (hypocrisy) make the educated readers of the newspaper wince, and every time one of them does, they count your opinion for just a little less (whether they should or not).
Two issues with that.
First, most of the users of p2p networks are home users who don't really do much other than play games, music, and otherwise entertain themselves. To the majority of users affected by this, it would actually be fairly difficult to claim $50 in damages.
Second, the way this law reads, as long as the MPAA's lynch mob reported the attacks to the government 7 days in advance and could claim that they reasonably expected they would only be hitting computers containing works violating their copyright, they could crash and burn any machine they wanted. Note that the bill clearly states that economic loss is limited to dollars. If they crash my hdd and I lose all the photos I haven't backed up to cd yet, there's no economic loss so I don't have cause to charge them criminally or sue them.
In addition, read d.1.a on page 5, which says you can't even seek recompense if your economic loss is less than $250. Thus, chances are my hardware damaged by such an attack, such as a hdd, won't even be of sufficient cost to seek damages.
Overall, I'd say this is vigilante justice of a type long frowned upon in this country.
But first, before you do that, you should read the article so you know that verisign was mentioned because it tried something similar with domain names, and is not involved in this at all. The company actually causing grief here is Comodo. (Though why anyone would name their company so close to commode I don't know. I'd feel like I was flushing money down the toilet everytime I dealt with them.)
What about S-Video input? That's at least better than Antenna, if not quite as good as Component.
Don't forget there are a few good colleges around here. Among them is RPI, which I recall being one of the first to get a chip going over 1GHz (1.2 GHz if I recall, before it melted). Add to that SUNY Albany, which is a pretty good state school, and there's GE Power Systems down the street, as well as Plug Power (Fuel Cell developers). Quite a few technical developments have come out of this area.
You apparently don't know enough Volvo enthusiasts. Some will even go so far as to put a V-8 engine in their "brick", just for fun.
What about business card sized? Do the same form factor with this optical technology as is already done with cd, and assuming the same 50:670 data capacity ratio you'll get 76GB of storage space on a business card sized disk. Would that take care of your needs? That'd be about 116 raw cd's, or 600 high quality encoded cd's.
Yes, it does, now that its been changed. It only said inch before, like the editor's comment says...
Its 12 cm, until you rub it. Then... ;>
Neither will I, but that's because I can't think of any that aren't shared by women of 25 or even 35 having a first experience. At 16, the ability of an individual to handle sexual issues has developed sufficiently to rest solely on an individual's mental state. Roughly around that age, an individual seems to reach a state that they could be at for years. A person that couldn't deal well with sexuality at 16 doesn't seem well equipped to handle it at 25 or 35, either. Under 14 there's really no understanding of sexual issues, between 14-16 things fall into place as much as the will, and after that it depends more on environment during the person's upbringing than some ingrained state. I can't think of anything tha happens to a person after puberty completes that would change their ability to handle sex.
I'm still not sure where the magical '18' comes from, or '21' for that matter. Nothing really interesting happens then, it just happens that, statistically speaking, an individual is more likely to have enough life experience to handle tough issues than not. And even that's a fairly arbitrary inflection point.
Of course, I also think the way we raise our children explicitly forces them into emotional problems when they finally come to address their sexuality.