I cannot see having 3 different types of 'Sensitive' can help efficiency at all.
Think of it this way:
- Your credit card information is sensitive , but you have to give it out to some people 'you think you can trust' in exchange for things you want. Once in a while you will get a new number and the old one will no longer be a coveted secret. Your credit is guarded under US law to limit your liability, but its a real pain when your card suddenly no longer works when you are out on a hot date.
- Your social security number is sensitive but you will often use it for a personal ID. You want to keep it away form identity thieves but the number is all over your insurance bills. Your trash might be dumpster divers heaven. If somebody gets this information you are toast, you can't get another one. You need to expunge all your debt and get back on your feet and hope things are better next time. Now try and buy a house...
- Your online banking password is sensitive, but you would not give it out to almost anyone, except perhaps your spouse who will need it to pay your bills. But, if you think something is wrong you can always change it, and ought to do so on a regular basis.
Each of the above types of information has a purpose, and if you stray outside the guide lines of who should have access, and under what conditions, each could have disasterous consequences. Its not about what is sensitive, but how that sensitive information is to be used and guarded.
He obviously was just testing those great Internet filters that got voted down in the EU recently. No wonder they didn't implement it, if even a politician could find a gaping hole in it then the filter was apparently not quite ready for the masses. Now if the AU national Internet filter was installed and actually worked like it was advertised then he would have never been successful, in his test of it, thus never caught and accused of surfing for porn. Somebody has to make sure it works, right?
Yes, quite a remarkable/. story, I agree. Just imagine, supernova shrapnel embedded in supernova shrapnel? Read all about it! Just like hitting a bullet with a bullet one might think! And it landed here? Wow, What are the odds/. readers?
Only, there are only more of these kinds of bullets/shrapnel flying around the Universe than we can possibly count, so who would ever think think that one would ever have landed here, after a collision, in only a few, say 14.7 Billion years? Um, Oh, forgot, isn't that like what we are standing on? One Supernovae Shrapnel after another is what it took to build our planet isn't it? Let me guess, they didn't collide when they landed here ho so very gently under the influence of gravitation? After all, anything 'harder' or 'heavier' than hydrogen, helium, and lithium came from the same place, a Supernova, according to the current Big Bang theorist. That should put the "faint traces of a supernova" from the fine article somewhat in perspective for most.
I'm just writing to add the appropriate html tag obviously left out by the parent poster...
</SARCASM>
When designing a "Portable Document Format" no API nor programming environment is needed or wanted by the users. Content providers on the other hand don't care about users of their documents?. Users just want a way to read published documents, not a way to dynamically reprogram their machine. If I want a program I will download one, but I expect that when I only intend to read something I only want to view it, not execute unknown/untrusted code I didn't ask for. Rhetorical Question: What kind of Idiot decided to put in a "powerful" (?) programming language with such poor user configuration and control, lack of modifiable permission attributes, and void of any such security compartmentalization into a general use document format? I am miffed why anyone would use it to publish anything given the security issues embedded in this general document format implementation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the law bars you (e.g. 'free exercise', as in freedom, not as in beer) from blogging then it it unconstitutional and is therefore null and void under the US Constitution Amendment 1. If your soap-box cost you money to stand on then it would be an illegal tax on the privilege of exercising your freedom to speak. Charging you a 'business tax' is the same thing, and this tax as described does not even take into account the fact that the equipment, services, electricity, etc, likely cost more than any advertising revenue taken in, so there is no profit to tax, only a free speech tax. Charging a 'business tax' on a personal exercise of the US Constitution should be illegal until such time that the individual' NET profits exceeds the taxable amounts allowed by law under the personal income tax regulations. If the taxable amount goes high enough then that individual should file quarterly taxes as any individual would be obligated. Under no circumstances should this individual be considered a business, until the applicable laws force them to do so, or become one. Of course with that said, liability insurance as a protected corporate entity might not be a bad idea in this day and age, and that would likely be a deductible expense.
Does it contain DRM? yes/no
Does the DRM'ed eBook allow text to speech conversion so I can listen to it during my drive to work each day? yes/no
Does it contain advertisements? yes/no
If it has DRM, and if I can still listen to it, I might still buy it depending on the depth of the subject matter. Publishers only record AudioBooks from the best-sellers lists so I had exhausted that pipeline long ago. Give me technical works. Give me something I want and I might buy it if the price is right, but then that is just my personal choice. If marked appropriately, others will be free to choose based on their own requirements.
For me, if it contains ads, then its a non-starter out of the box. I won't buy it no matter what the price. I can buy my eBooks elsewhere, in another eBook format, or download PDF/HTML/Text materials I want to listen to, for free, and convert it with 'Calibre' to a suitable format for my Kindle. I paid for that capability when I bought my Kindle, and I'm not afraid to use it the way it was designed, despite your changing our agreement and adding additional text-to-speech DRM to it after the fact. If I don't see what I want for content, or if that content is otherwise polluted with useless advertisements, then don't expect to make any profit from me. There is no requirement that I purchase eBooks from you. I'm not buying junk in eBooks any more than I buy a package of bones at the grocery store when I really want steak.
I would not laugh too loud. Facebook is adding 'location information', so the next step would naturally be 'verifying' that location. That wont be hard once your drivers licence, credit cards, and other 'store convenience cards' all have RFID embedded for their own brand of convenience.
I can see a hypothetical situation now:
Officer: "No need to sign any traffic ticket Son, we know who you are, and you can find your ticket and licence info on the departments facebook page for the County's "Deadbeats, Speeders, and Delinquents" until the posted amount is paid in full."
They might even just forget that traffic court could possibly find you 'not guilty', and hope that you just pay the fine to get off that facebook page. That would save them a heap of money if you just pay the fine and don't show up in court to fight the charges.
First, its not Dell or HP that is being "Open", its Oracle. Oracle is Open to the idea that you buy their specific brand of software, which btw is not Ubuntu in any case.
Dell and HP still have to answer to MS because of market volume and legacy contracts, but with Oracle (possibly trying to be the new 800 lb gorilla in the OS market place) that might just change. That will still be tough, because Solaris is still a knitch market, and Linux is too competitive, with too much variety to choose from.
Yes, its best to be sceptical on this one. But I can assure you that Cold Fusion is real, but very hard to reproduce in the Lab and completely working by principals that nobody yet understands. I do work in a Physics Lab, and had the honour of sitting in on a lecture from a well renowned co-worker who explained what we do and do not know about it to date. Its real.
The unfortunate reality is that *because of the scandal*, and under the current political fallout conditions, it is considered professional suicide to even get evolved with it. Any projects you are working on will immediately become unfunded, even those not directly related to Cold Fusion. The politics are a formidable problem with moving the technology forward, and that is not likely to change any time soon. Someday it will no longer be taboo to work on it, but for now don't hold your breath. Bad politics can kill almost any 'good thing' despite the clear benefits it might possess for the future. Right now the only way it will ever move forward is through private funding.
You need to notify CERT, and then they have the ability to apply more pressure on the manufacturer, as they simultaneously publish a very vague notice to the community of a flaw being worked on. If CERT is involved you have a much higher probability of not being ignored or told "will-not-fix" because it is already public knowledge that there is an exploit that needs fixing. Its in the record. The official "report cards" for the vendors then have the clock start ticking the minute you report the flaw, and the vendor can not deny that they were notified and/or aware of the problem. In other words, they can't sweep it under the rug very easily, and you have done the best you can do without causing mass pandemonium.
To the advertisers this would mean that it has lost almost all its value in advertising revenue, so the remaining subscriptions had better than make up for that lost revenue stream. People who pay for a service don't want ads, and there is no longer any non-paying customers. Any advertising agency with half a brain will just move on and find some other site to pay those X-billion dollars a year to. There is no value in advertising when 100% of the paying customers reading it expect to *not* have to put up with reading ads. (sound of the other foot-gun)
That is almost true, but let us not forget the "snake oil salesmen" that sell the DRM that can never do what it is promised it will do. Anyone that invests big money on software to perform DRM is throwing money at a lost cause. Where else can you get millions for handing the end user the media, the algorithm, and the encryption key, and expect them not to be smart enough to put them together? Or better yet, to even use a felt tip marker to defeat it? Oh, their solution is to make doing that illegal. Yet again the lawyers can all have a field day, and not just the ones working directly for the RIAA.
They could cut the price of the CD's by 50%, not pay for the DRM'ed media/software cost, time to manage the high tech drm-keying process, and save the misery of user support/returns, and still stand to make more money by just selling more music. The problem with that volume-selling concept as the RIAA sees it is the artists would make more money because there would be lower overall overhead expenses to deduct out of the revenue stream before paying out the remaining fraction of profits to the artist. The RIAA depends on this contrived overhead to reduce what is actually paid to the artists. More overhead, more profit at the top! I would hope the artists catch on to this concept one day and actually ask for a 'reality check' (the paper kind preferably) from the RIAA management.
This is exactly why 'software patents' are insufficient enough to fall under the guidelines that our forefathers had intended for the USPTO. They wanted the 'disclosure' so that others could benefit, but with software, any general description of the 'device' does not express that kind of information necessary. Without the source code itself you can not build, modify, or devise a 'better version' of that same 'device'. The purpose of exclusion was to ensure that the original inventor collected monetary incentives to produce more inventions, not to prevent more inventions. Software totally misses this benchmark, and Open Source was invented to exactly negate the negative aspects practised by this industry.
When patenting software, just saying 'what it does' rather than 'how it does it' is insufficient and is completely contrary to the general intent of the 'disclosure' designed into the original charter of the patent system. This portion of the patent system is what is being abused, simply because you can cast the 'what it does' so widely that it overshadows every other device that could ever be dreamed up, even without having proof that such a device ever did, or even could possibly exist. You can patent the Sun, the Sky, and the Moon, as long as its implemented in software. No proof of existence required, and don't expect the USPTO to learn how to use 'state of the art' software compilers any time soon either. If they actually understood software that well they would be very careful what they allowed to receive a patent, as they could not even perform their own job (compiling and verifying inventions) without infringing on someone else's patents. Could you imagine someone actually going trolling at the USPTO? That would drive the point home and fix things real quick.
It has been implemented, but it causes it's own set of problems. For one, the tower causes turbulence in the air stream which in turn causes large fluctuations of the blade when passing by the tower. Turbulence is a big problem and is the reason why they are put on tall towers. The air is much less turbulent if you get up high enough.
There are problems with the general design that have kept these from even being marketed en-mass.
First, they are generally not self starting which means you won't find cheap-o models at Wallmart to put in back of your house. They need wind sensors, electronic controllers, and motor/breaking control, and an alternate electrical power source, just to get started. Once moving they are self sustaining.
Two, they are subject to parasympathetic harmonic oscillations, which eventually lead to catastrophic self destruction. Its part of the physics of the design, as each forward blade produces shock waves in the air stream that hit the rear blades. That also makes them noisy. I have heard of even some 'aircraft quality epoxy-kevlar blades' self destructing after only one years use. I tried to get the laboratory to try again with some suggested design modifications and they basically blew me off because they were "done with it" (the project). No amount of persuasion was going to change anything, even on my own dime.
Three, in high wind situations they don't have a good mechanism for dealing with the 'high energy' situation. Horizontal systems can turn their blades, or rotate sideways (yaw) to reduce the surface area of the blades, but vertical systems can't. Mechanical breaking systems, used to stop all motion, seems to be the only option, and that produces zero power just when the most energy is available.
I can solve 1,2 on the drawing board at home, but have been held up by #3. If you can solve all three of the above, then I agree with you. They rock. But I won't hold my breath for anyone to solve all three without some major research funding. Even so, no amount of money can 'give you an idea', that has to happen all on its own.
More like, now that someone else won a victory in court, with no valid data to support the verdict, they feel it should be easy enough to point a finger at that verdict and tell the court "me too". Its a lot easier to sit back and wait for someone else to set a legal president and jump on the moving band wagon than it is to push that wagon uphill in the first place. LimeWire may be guilty as hell for aiding and abetting a crime under the US copyright laws, but they did not download any songs, period. To force them to pay 'per song' is a farce no matter what the price, because there is no substantial proof of them ever downloading songs. Someone else did that.
Pentaho/Kettle is for "Market Intelligence", and that's why it took me 5 minutes to re-read the article numerous times and an additional 10 minutes of Googleing just to find out what this SlashDot story was about. Obviously I'm not smart enough to know anything "Intelligent", such as say, stating what the product/book is actually for? Analysing 'the market', or analysing 'whom I am marketing'?
Now I am just left with the thought, is this "Intelligence" effort trying to market me? If so they are doing a pretty lousy job of it, seeing that after reading the article and Googleing I am still at a loss to explain what I just read. I regularly read about advanced mathematics in Relativity and Quantum Physics for fun, but I am obviously too stupid to understand marketing.
Its not a replacement for Byte by any means, but if you are into automation or robotics then Servo Magazine is not a bad choice. http://www.servomagazine.com/ It caters to the robotics competition crowd, but there is still lots to learn both electronically, mechanically, or programatically. Its great if you need to create sensors, control 'things', or just like making things that go whizz and move around the room.;)
No, but North Korea is better known for making things that don't really exist. I'm not sure that Japan has yet proven successful at making things out of nothing, as of yet. But if anyone can do it, I bet it's North Korea's Kim Jong Il.
No disrespect to you intended, but perhaps you and the author of the paper should go out for a beer together. You may have more in common that you think.;)
One question for the author; Just how does one expect to add this angular momentum to a black hole? How do you give a black hole enough angular momentum to allow the matter inside of it to actually travel faster than the speed of light, to achieve the escape velocity? By definition that requires infinite energy, thus it adds infinite mass equivalence.
It seems to me that the concept even defies the basic laws of physics/math no matter what the adjusted formula says. The formula is incomplete because it does not account for the added mass the 'solution' requires. Even if you add just 'charge' energy you have also added mass. Mass equates to more gravitational attraction, and a bigger event horizon, not a solution.
If IBM even charged SCOg for even the standard Mainframe rental fee for the past 7+ years SCOg would be defunct. On top of that they should also charge for the interest on the money not paid for that forced 'rental', just to twist the legal blade a little for good measure. IBM of course could never hope collect on that debt, or any other, but it would stand as an example to the next extortionist plan wielding threat monger to think twice. I can't wait to hear official news of the IBM counter charges suit going forward.
But its not benign in any sense of reality. Think of it this way, for every 1000 lines of code there is an average of 1-1.5 defects even in highly scrutinized Government sponsored "secure" programs. If Microsoft wrote 10k lines of code (conservative I think) that is, given Microsoft's current defect track record, about 12 real defects in that hypothetical extension (I don't know the actual size of the code base). If even one of those defects provides a security vulnerability your system gets hacked. How secure are you? You don't even know its vulnerable, and if you did, you may not even be able to remove it entirely because Microsoft doesn't provide that capability on purpose. Even if you find a way to deactivate it there is still code on your system that might be abused without clicking on the GUI taskbar. Removing these Microsoft 'add-ons' generally requires a knowledgeable person to essentially hack you Firefox/OS installation just to remove it. The real twist to the reality is that they even want Firefox to be unstable and cause you problems, so what is their incentive to make it defect free? They are not going to put much effort into ensuring that a competitors product continues to beat them in the open market. Microsoft likes to win. History itself tells the truth about their true motivations. I won't even go there.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Unleashes the Kraken https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kraken_botnet. I just wonder if this is somehow a 'Freudian slip', just to remind the world of how vulnerable the competition is?
Think of it this way:
- Your credit card information is sensitive , but you have to give it out to some people 'you think you can trust' in exchange for things you want. Once in a while you will get a new number and the old one will no longer be a coveted secret. Your credit is guarded under US law to limit your liability, but its a real pain when your card suddenly no longer works when you are out on a hot date.
- Your social security number is sensitive but you will often use it for a personal ID. You want to keep it away form identity thieves but the number is all over your insurance bills. Your trash might be dumpster divers heaven. If somebody gets this information you are toast, you can't get another one. You need to expunge all your debt and get back on your feet and hope things are better next time. Now try and buy a house...
- Your online banking password is sensitive, but you would not give it out to almost anyone, except perhaps your spouse who will need it to pay your bills. But, if you think something is wrong you can always change it, and ought to do so on a regular basis.
Each of the above types of information has a purpose, and if you stray outside the guide lines of who should have access, and under what conditions, each could have disasterous consequences. Its not about what is sensitive, but how that sensitive information is to be used and guarded.
He obviously was just testing those great Internet filters that got voted down in the EU recently. No wonder they didn't implement it, if even a politician could find a gaping hole in it then the filter was apparently not quite ready for the masses. Now if the AU national Internet filter was installed and actually worked like it was advertised then he would have never been successful, in his test of it, thus never caught and accused of surfing for porn. Somebody has to make sure it works, right?
Only, there are only more of these kinds of bullets/shrapnel flying around the Universe than we can possibly count, so who would ever think think that one would ever have landed here, after a collision, in only a few, say 14.7 Billion years? Um, Oh, forgot, isn't that like what we are standing on? One Supernovae Shrapnel after another is what it took to build our planet isn't it? Let me guess, they didn't collide when they landed here ho so very gently under the influence of gravitation? After all, anything 'harder' or 'heavier' than hydrogen, helium, and lithium came from the same place, a Supernova, according to the current Big Bang theorist. That should put the "faint traces of a supernova" from the fine article somewhat in perspective for most.
When designing a "Portable Document Format" no API nor programming environment is needed or wanted by the users. Content providers on the other hand don't care about users of their documents?. Users just want a way to read published documents, not a way to dynamically reprogram their machine. If I want a program I will download one, but I expect that when I only intend to read something I only want to view it, not execute unknown/untrusted code I didn't ask for. Rhetorical Question: What kind of Idiot decided to put in a "powerful" (?) programming language with such poor user configuration and control, lack of modifiable permission attributes, and void of any such security compartmentalization into a general use document format? I am miffed why anyone would use it to publish anything given the security issues embedded in this general document format implementation.
http://hackedgadgets.com/2009/03/19/smart-petal-solar-collector/
http://www.cleanergyindustries.com/production.html
If the law bars you (e.g. 'free exercise', as in freedom, not as in beer) from blogging then it it unconstitutional and is therefore null and void under the US Constitution Amendment 1. If your soap-box cost you money to stand on then it would be an illegal tax on the privilege of exercising your freedom to speak. Charging you a 'business tax' is the same thing, and this tax as described does not even take into account the fact that the equipment, services, electricity, etc, likely cost more than any advertising revenue taken in, so there is no profit to tax, only a free speech tax. Charging a 'business tax' on a personal exercise of the US Constitution should be illegal until such time that the individual' NET profits exceeds the taxable amounts allowed by law under the personal income tax regulations. If the taxable amount goes high enough then that individual should file quarterly taxes as any individual would be obligated. Under no circumstances should this individual be considered a business, until the applicable laws force them to do so, or become one. Of course with that said, liability insurance as a protected corporate entity might not be a bad idea in this day and age, and that would likely be a deductible expense.
IANAL, so don't listen to me.
Does it contain DRM? yes/no
Does the DRM'ed eBook allow text to speech conversion so I can listen to it during my drive to work each day? yes/no
Does it contain advertisements? yes/no
If it has DRM, and if I can still listen to it, I might still buy it depending on the depth of the subject matter. Publishers only record AudioBooks from the best-sellers lists so I had exhausted that pipeline long ago. Give me technical works. Give me something I want and I might buy it if the price is right, but then that is just my personal choice. If marked appropriately, others will be free to choose based on their own requirements.
For me, if it contains ads, then its a non-starter out of the box. I won't buy it no matter what the price. I can buy my eBooks elsewhere, in another eBook format, or download PDF/HTML/Text materials I want to listen to, for free, and convert it with 'Calibre' to a suitable format for my Kindle. I paid for that capability when I bought my Kindle, and I'm not afraid to use it the way it was designed, despite your changing our agreement and adding additional text-to-speech DRM to it after the fact. If I don't see what I want for content, or if that content is otherwise polluted with useless advertisements, then don't expect to make any profit from me. There is no requirement that I purchase eBooks from you. I'm not buying junk in eBooks any more than I buy a package of bones at the grocery store when I really want steak.
I can see a hypothetical situation now:
They might even just forget that traffic court could possibly find you 'not guilty', and hope that you just pay the fine to get off that facebook page. That would save them a heap of money if you just pay the fine and don't show up in court to fight the charges.
Dell and HP still have to answer to MS because of market volume and legacy contracts, but with Oracle (possibly trying to be the new 800 lb gorilla in the OS market place) that might just change. That will still be tough, because Solaris is still a knitch market, and Linux is too competitive, with too much variety to choose from.
The unfortunate reality is that *because of the scandal*, and under the current political fallout conditions, it is considered professional suicide to even get evolved with it. Any projects you are working on will immediately become unfunded, even those not directly related to Cold Fusion. The politics are a formidable problem with moving the technology forward, and that is not likely to change any time soon. Someday it will no longer be taboo to work on it, but for now don't hold your breath. Bad politics can kill almost any 'good thing' despite the clear benefits it might possess for the future. Right now the only way it will ever move forward is through private funding.
You need to notify CERT, and then they have the ability to apply more pressure on the manufacturer, as they simultaneously publish a very vague notice to the community of a flaw being worked on. If CERT is involved you have a much higher probability of not being ignored or told "will-not-fix" because it is already public knowledge that there is an exploit that needs fixing. Its in the record. The official "report cards" for the vendors then have the clock start ticking the minute you report the flaw, and the vendor can not deny that they were notified and/or aware of the problem. In other words, they can't sweep it under the rug very easily, and you have done the best you can do without causing mass pandemonium.
We're going to need a bigger shark.
That's necessary just to get the larger sized cooling fins of course. I understand those things can get toasty warm even when water cooled.
To the advertisers this would mean that it has lost almost all its value in advertising revenue, so the remaining subscriptions had better than make up for that lost revenue stream. People who pay for a service don't want ads, and there is no longer any non-paying customers. Any advertising agency with half a brain will just move on and find some other site to pay those X-billion dollars a year to. There is no value in advertising when 100% of the paying customers reading it expect to *not* have to put up with reading ads. (sound of the other foot-gun)
That is almost true, but let us not forget the "snake oil salesmen" that sell the DRM that can never do what it is promised it will do. Anyone that invests big money on software to perform DRM is throwing money at a lost cause. Where else can you get millions for handing the end user the media, the algorithm, and the encryption key, and expect them not to be smart enough to put them together? Or better yet, to even use a felt tip marker to defeat it? Oh, their solution is to make doing that illegal. Yet again the lawyers can all have a field day, and not just the ones working directly for the RIAA.
They could cut the price of the CD's by 50%, not pay for the DRM'ed media/software cost, time to manage the high tech drm-keying process, and save the misery of user support/returns, and still stand to make more money by just selling more music. The problem with that volume-selling concept as the RIAA sees it is the artists would make more money because there would be lower overall overhead expenses to deduct out of the revenue stream before paying out the remaining fraction of profits to the artist. The RIAA depends on this contrived overhead to reduce what is actually paid to the artists. More overhead, more profit at the top! I would hope the artists catch on to this concept one day and actually ask for a 'reality check' (the paper kind preferably) from the RIAA management.
When patenting software, just saying 'what it does' rather than 'how it does it' is insufficient and is completely contrary to the general intent of the 'disclosure' designed into the original charter of the patent system. This portion of the patent system is what is being abused, simply because you can cast the 'what it does' so widely that it overshadows every other device that could ever be dreamed up, even without having proof that such a device ever did, or even could possibly exist. You can patent the Sun, the Sky, and the Moon, as long as its implemented in software. No proof of existence required, and don't expect the USPTO to learn how to use 'state of the art' software compilers any time soon either. If they actually understood software that well they would be very careful what they allowed to receive a patent, as they could not even perform their own job (compiling and verifying inventions) without infringing on someone else's patents. Could you imagine someone actually going trolling at the USPTO? That would drive the point home and fix things real quick.
It has been implemented, but it causes it's own set of problems. For one, the tower causes turbulence in the air stream which in turn causes large fluctuations of the blade when passing by the tower. Turbulence is a big problem and is the reason why they are put on tall towers. The air is much less turbulent if you get up high enough.
First, they are generally not self starting which means you won't find cheap-o models at Wallmart to put in back of your house. They need wind sensors, electronic controllers, and motor/breaking control, and an alternate electrical power source, just to get started. Once moving they are self sustaining.
Two, they are subject to parasympathetic harmonic oscillations, which eventually lead to catastrophic self destruction. Its part of the physics of the design, as each forward blade produces shock waves in the air stream that hit the rear blades. That also makes them noisy. I have heard of even some 'aircraft quality epoxy-kevlar blades' self destructing after only one years use. I tried to get the laboratory to try again with some suggested design modifications and they basically blew me off because they were "done with it" (the project). No amount of persuasion was going to change anything, even on my own dime.
Three, in high wind situations they don't have a good mechanism for dealing with the 'high energy' situation. Horizontal systems can turn their blades, or rotate sideways (yaw) to reduce the surface area of the blades, but vertical systems can't. Mechanical breaking systems, used to stop all motion, seems to be the only option, and that produces zero power just when the most energy is available.
I can solve 1,2 on the drawing board at home, but have been held up by #3. If you can solve all three of the above, then I agree with you. They rock. But I won't hold my breath for anyone to solve all three without some major research funding. Even so, no amount of money can 'give you an idea', that has to happen all on its own.
More like, now that someone else won a victory in court, with no valid data to support the verdict, they feel it should be easy enough to point a finger at that verdict and tell the court "me too". Its a lot easier to sit back and wait for someone else to set a legal president and jump on the moving band wagon than it is to push that wagon uphill in the first place. LimeWire may be guilty as hell for aiding and abetting a crime under the US copyright laws, but they did not download any songs, period. To force them to pay 'per song' is a farce no matter what the price, because there is no substantial proof of them ever downloading songs. Someone else did that.
Now I am just left with the thought, is this "Intelligence" effort trying to market me? If so they are doing a pretty lousy job of it, seeing that after reading the article and Googleing I am still at a loss to explain what I just read. I regularly read about advanced mathematics in Relativity and Quantum Physics for fun, but I am obviously too stupid to understand marketing.
Its not a replacement for Byte by any means, but if you are into automation or robotics then Servo Magazine is not a bad choice. http://www.servomagazine.com/ It caters to the robotics competition crowd, but there is still lots to learn both electronically, mechanically, or programatically. Its great if you need to create sensors, control 'things', or just like making things that go whizz and move around the room. ;)
No, but North Korea is better known for making things that don't really exist. I'm not sure that Japan has yet proven successful at making things out of nothing, as of yet. But if anyone can do it, I bet it's North Korea's Kim Jong Il.
One question for the author; Just how does one expect to add this angular momentum to a black hole? How do you give a black hole enough angular momentum to allow the matter inside of it to actually travel faster than the speed of light, to achieve the escape velocity? By definition that requires infinite energy, thus it adds infinite mass equivalence.
It seems to me that the concept even defies the basic laws of physics/math no matter what the adjusted formula says. The formula is incomplete because it does not account for the added mass the 'solution' requires. Even if you add just 'charge' energy you have also added mass. Mass equates to more gravitational attraction, and a bigger event horizon, not a solution.
Your beer should be cold by now.
If IBM even charged SCOg for even the standard Mainframe rental fee for the past 7+ years SCOg would be defunct. On top of that they should also charge for the interest on the money not paid for that forced 'rental', just to twist the legal blade a little for good measure. IBM of course could never hope collect on that debt, or any other, but it would stand as an example to the next extortionist plan wielding threat monger to think twice. I can't wait to hear official news of the IBM counter charges suit going forward.
But its not benign in any sense of reality. Think of it this way, for every 1000 lines of code there is an average of 1-1.5 defects even in highly scrutinized Government sponsored "secure" programs. If Microsoft wrote 10k lines of code (conservative I think) that is, given Microsoft's current defect track record, about 12 real defects in that hypothetical extension (I don't know the actual size of the code base). If even one of those defects provides a security vulnerability your system gets hacked. How secure are you? You don't even know its vulnerable, and if you did, you may not even be able to remove it entirely because Microsoft doesn't provide that capability on purpose. Even if you find a way to deactivate it there is still code on your system that might be abused without clicking on the GUI taskbar. Removing these Microsoft 'add-ons' generally requires a knowledgeable person to essentially hack you Firefox/OS installation just to remove it. The real twist to the reality is that they even want Firefox to be unstable and cause you problems, so what is their incentive to make it defect free? They are not going to put much effort into ensuring that a competitors product continues to beat them in the open market. Microsoft likes to win. History itself tells the truth about their true motivations. I won't even go there.