Re: MicroUSB poor standard
Well, MicroUSB was designed for two things: thinner phones (it's a thinner plug) and wear issues (most of the wear-and-tear falls to the plug, which is easier to replace than the socket).
4149 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Well, MicroUSB was designed for two things: thinner phones (it's a thinner plug) and wear issues (most of the wear-and-tear falls to the plug, which is easier to replace than the socket).
These systems typically use cathodic protection: either galvanic or impressed-current (the larger the ship, the more likely it's the latter). Thing is, cathodic protection relies on the consumption and eventual replenishment of a metal anode like zinc. Since ships are regularly dry-docked, replacing their anodes is easy enough. An impressed-current system allows for the anode to be placed elsewhere where it can maintained more easily, but it adds a power requirement. At least oil rigs tend to be manned while in use. The same can't always be said of windmills.
Well, it's a consideration. Would probably depend on the turbine's current generation. If it's DC, it wouldn't be difficult to tap some of it to apply an impressed current. Thing is, you'll still need a metal anode for the process. It would all depend on the conditions whether or not a galvanic or impressed-current system would be practical.
Interesting thought. How low have they gotten their coefficient of friction at this point, and how do they address the isue of air viscocity?
From a breeder reactor, yes, but from the byproduct of a Thorium fuel cycle? Not likely because the byproduct is usually laced with very-hard-to-separate and very-dangerous Uranium-232.
IOW, you're not teleporting an electrion; you're making an electron on the other end move by moving the one on your end. Think of it like a variant of the tin-can telephone.
Hate to rain on the parade, but I believe that design (a variant on the MSR) makes a lot of assumptions about the fuels it can handle. Because there are plenty of contaminants natually produced in nuclear fuel cycles that can affect future reactions (it's part of the reason they're left as waste rather than reprocessed into new fuel).
MIT may be full of eggheads, but I don't recall the design being vetted by the oldest heads in the nuclear industry as of yet. Some of them, IIRC, posted similar criticisms.
That's not what I heard. The Thorium fuel cycle normally does produce U-233, yes, but it's usually contaminated with U-232, which is not only extremely dangerous (it's worse than the 233, which is more dangerous than plutonium) but also extremely hard to separate from the U-233 because they're so close in atomic weight (U-235 is 3 away from U-238 and is still a pain to separate, U-232 is only 1 away from U-233).
The thing is, we can always find uses for excess power (think desalination, aluminium smelting, research into synthetic hydrocarbons). It's a lot better to have too much power than too little. We can find ways to deal with too much.
Meaning, at the time, the US and the USSR WANTED uranium reactors. They WANTED the plutonium byproduct to put into thier nuclear arsenlal. It's only now, after the Cold War, that the idea is no longer as appealing.
Given that the isotope you want is Uranium-235, which is hard to get out of Uranium-233, I don't think so. LFTR byproducts are typically contaminated with Uranium-232. Basically, you're better off handling plutonium.
But this does raise a question. If Uranium-233 is a byproduct of the LFTR, how does one deal with it, given that it has a half-life in the 10^5 range of years?
We ARE talking about the same firm that took the challenge of reducing radar cross-section and producing the F-117 (which overachieved the goal by an order of magnitude), so they DO have a history of being able to crank out surprisingly effective tech, but we've been trying to crack the fusion problem for the past few decades, so as the saying goes, "I'll believe it when I see it."
"Set a system/procedures in place to actually check validity of a claim, not just let the courts clean up the mess later.*"
The reason for this is that Congress allocates such a measely budget for them. Investigating patents requires people and costs time and money. How will the USPTO handle this on a literal shoestring budget?
"Here's a unique step: Only the inventor can hold a patent! Patents should be non-transferable, period! You want to use it, pay him/her/it for the right to use it."
Sometimes, the inventor is not in a position to market an idea. Put it this way. Hoover didn't actually invent a vacuum cleaner, but he bought the patent of a gentleman not in a position to market the idea. Selling a patent should be allowed, but it should ONLY be for the purposes of actually implementing the patent.
"And the death blow? No software/process patents! If copyright can cover it, it shouldn't be patented."
The thing is, software TECHNIQUES that explain things IN BROAD cannot be covered by copyright because one can use an alternate language or method to get around copyright. Patents are the only way to cover ALL instances. THAT BEING SAID, what's needed is an adjustment on the period of patents based on their pertinent industry. A 20-year patent in a slow-moving industry like heavy machinery or medicine makes sense, but for the fast-moving world of computers, a term of about 3-4 years makes more sense (think two generations of development in an industry--long enough to get some skin out of it, but not long enough to really abuse it). Other industries may benefit from an adjustment to their patent lengths as well.
"Of course, because embedded Windows is the *obvious* choice for a fighter. MS lost the embedded market years ago, so put down the koolaid as it is starting to come out of your ears."
Oh? You should see what runs Taito's Type X line of arcade machines. They're all PC based and ALL run a form of Windows (Either XP Embedded or Embedded Standard 7, X3 can use the 64-bit version), and there's a pretty long list of games that use the architecture, including current games running on Type X, including the Street Fighter IV series and King of Fighters since 2012.
Except we're not exactly talking joypads here. These are touchpads, actually, and while they CAN be geared to simulate joypads, they don't HAVE to. They can be more like the touchpads on laptops, which can act more like trackballs than joypads, and if set sensitive enough can allow very rapid motions with just a flick.
I was thinking about that, too. Because the US doesn't support LTE Band III (it's a military frequency there), I'm curious to know the LTE frequency list of the European Note 3. It needs to support Bands IV or XVII to be useable in the US for the most part.
What I'd like to know is how they arrive at this level of confidence and how they can rule out (with a high degree of certainty) other, more natural factors.
They tried that with the Pirate Bay. Guess what happened? People outside Britain started opening Pirate Bay proxies and mirrors, turning the whole business into a game of Whack-A-Mole. Knock one down, someone else raises another, and many of them could be in countries where the UK (or even the EU) can't exert influence to block. Then there's the idea of TOR'ing to the Pirate Bay, which means it's relayed a few times (usually to different countries), so the UK loses there, too.
"I'm not a lawyer (thank goodness), but bizarrely, my recollection is that consent for *photographs* is almost universally 18, regardless of the age of consent for sex. I think there are plenty of states in the US where the AOC is 16 (can't say it's ever come up for me... uh...) but that doesn't change CP laws. So you can have sex with her and it's hunky dory, but if you take a picture you're a monster. :P"
You assume the laws and customs are the same everywhere you go. Consider, until recently a girl could appear nude in Germany's Bravo Magazine as early as 14. Even now, it's still only 16 where other countries can insist on 18 or even 20. Which shows some countries take a looser stance on the subject (and it's not considered a big thing by the populace) as long as it's known the participants are willing. And last I checked, standards and customs in Asian countries can be even more varied.
So, like copyright, you have a problem of conflicting standards. And that doesn't address the issue that if copyright dodgers can change their names, use codewords, and so on to hide from Google, why can't the CP'ers do the same thing: turn the business into a game of Whack-A-Mole while hiding out in countries that won't extradite for CP?
"Or - heaven forfend - what if a bunch of people donated some CPU time to a crowdsourced search engine with a distributed database. Try and shut *that* down ...."
If you really want to look into such a thing, look up YaCy (http://www.yacy.net/)
Altavista was closed earlier this year, IIRC, some time after being eventually bought indirectly by Yahoo!.
As for your distributed search engine idea, that has potential flaws. It's like with Freenet, things can drop off the map, plus there may be ways to attack the infrastructure or poison the results.
"Not to mention, copyright laws are different in every country. You're asking them to enforce a mix of criminal and civil laws with multiple interpretations across multiple jurisdictions."
Can't the same be said about CP laws? After all, there are differing ages of consent and differing attitudes toward the practice. It's not like there's a universal standard here, either.
"I think the problem comes when you try and print them. Some bright spark realised pretty early on how important it would be to keep the lid on fake notes and got everyone to sign up."
And how did they convince the firms operating outside the country? Import restrictions? What about international bank note copying (copying notes from another country and then moving them over there)? What if there's a note re-issue (the US now refreshes notes $5 and greater every few years).
But the thing is, the same things you describe can be used by CP flingers to get around censors, yet Google appears to be much more aggressive in closing those links than they are in closing piracy rings. So it DOES smack of a double standard. Unless Google can explain clearly what's so different about CP that they can clamp those down and not pirates, they'll be looking like a Janus.
They called it a Turbo-fire to distinguish the fact the Rapid fire only happened as long as you held down the button, in contrast to a true auto-fire which simply kept that button rapid-firing with no user input.
As for slo-mo, I believe this was intended as a way to help slow down fast-paced games making them easier to negotiate (more time to dodge bullets and so on). It was a bodge at best since Slow was basically Auto-fire rigged to the Start button (which since the Nintendo days was traditionally used to pause the game).
For the Apple IIe onward, Ctrl+Reset performed a break to the system prompt. Adding the OpenApple (the hollow Apple logo left of the Spacebar) performed a reset.
The Commodore 64 and 128 had a Stop key. In BASIC, hitting this aborted execution; it mapped to ASCII 3 (Ctrl-C) so could be caught by any program (It was labeled Run/Stop because shifitng it ran the LOAD macro command for tape drives). On a harder note, holding it with the Restore key triggered a Panic sequence. It usually broke you out of whatever program you had, restored default colors and sent you back to BASIC. The 128 went the extra distance and added a hard reset button. To be on the safe side, though, it was located on the SIDE of the machine, next to the power switch.
I believe the Atari 400/800 computer line had a dedicated reset button, too, located among a cluster of four normally above the numbers on the keyboard.
And the GOP won't budge because they feel the threat is existential (meaning, do this or the USA is DEEEEADDDD!). The troubling thing about existential threats is that it tends to relax any taboos you may have at the time. All bets are off, no holds barred if your future existence is at stake. That's why the Tea Party won't budge. It's not just reflexive drivel to them--THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!
IINM those tubes of theirs are completely private, meaning they sidestep the neutrality issue the way a privately-funded highway does. They don't have to be neutral because they didn't built the lines with government money. As long as that condition exists, it's basically "my line, my rules".
Actually, if the faucet is designed with a wider mouth or some other physical aspect, your water may come out at a different pressure or quality. You want your water hotter? Perhaps a different water heater. Just saying some things can be controlled by your decisions.
Thing is, the Internet is very much like the highway system: built mostly out of public funds with a sprinkling of private investment, used a lot, and getting crowded. So the argument is basically boiling down to how best to manage it. At its core, Net Neutrality is saying not to allow the equivalent of HOV lanes or the like, as one can't tell at a glance what's really important (especially as more and more traffic starts going encrypted end-to-end, obscruing its nature). They have a point, but it's also fair to ask them for a better idea, as bandwidth demands aren't currently keeping up with infrastructure.
As for the person who has no choice but cable ATM, hasn't there been competition from an alternate cable provider or a FTTP provider?
Criminal organizations WANT the status quo, as it creates a "forbidden fruit" effect that makes their trade valuable (just as Prohibition allowed mobs to make a killing off distilleries, breweries, and speakeasies in the 1920's). Legalization would mean above-the-board businesses could grow and market the stuff, increasing the supply and undercutting the criminals.
Forget screens. They were lucky to have printers. And the average transatlantic round-trip time in the early 19th century was, what, two or three months? It wasn't until telegraph systems appeared that textual communications sped up considerably, (to the point that text streaming became possible for the first time) and even then there were no pictures (early attempts at facsimiles were too clunky for practicality, and it wasn't until the 1920's, I think, that sending pictures over the phone became practical for industries like journalism). And it was all still printed.
Universal suffrage was a mistake. It was never part of the US to begin with but the system they had to begin with (must be a male landowner), while it made sure the voters had skin in the game, also wasn't flexible enough to allow for the rich who didn't own land (which started appearing more with the Industrial Revolution). The vote needs to be a privilege given only upon passing a knowledge-based test (and naturalized citizens go through it already--a civics test is prerequisite). IOW, you shouldn't be able to vote unless you know what's involved in the process.
Yes, I know, as long as it's manmade, the test can be corrupted and skewed against certain demographics, but do you have any better ideas to keep out stupid votes driven by impulse with no knowledge of the consequences (since nowadays ten stupid votes easily swamp one intelligent vote)?
I've always wondered why the country didin't keep possession of the critical infrastructure like spectrum and so on and simply leased them to private firms to manage under terms and conditions? IOW, make the stuff held in trust instead of just flaw owned to be exploited?
Then again, perhaps I'm not seeing the whole picture, and I'm pretty sure such a concept has its flaws. Please feel free to post counter-arguments, as I'd like to find a way to manage this most efficiently while at the same not allow it to be exploited and hoarded.
"Reduction of SNAP benefits (food assistance for the poor)"
I actually WANT this one. Limit the eligible food list to wholesome foods, as the program is frequently abused to splurge on junk food. If you're going to be on the dole, lay down some tough ground rules to encourage better behaviour.
I beg your pardon but both of them HAVE been investing in infrastructure. That's why they both have LTE bands. Thing is, infrastructure is a high barrier of entry in a market like utilities, so incumbency and customer base tends to produce a feedback loop among the leaders of those kinds of markets. They tend towards cannibalism and natural monopolies, especially when an important commodity of the business is inherently limited (in this case, spectrum). IOW, the most cost-effective way to get more infrastructure is to get it from someone else.
Even hex-band LTE phones have limits. There have been hex-band phones for some time (The S4, for example). US-tuned phones used by AT&T and T-Mobile use the same set of six: I, II, IV, V, VII, & XVII. Bands above XXX (like the Clearwire band, XLI) are TDD and not as well supported, especially in international applications.
I will admit the RF360 and others like it could moot the point if it really can deliver on being able to tune to ANY LTE frequency, but devices using it probably won't show up for a number of months yet (It was only announed this February). Plus note it says *40* bands, yet the Clearwire band is 4*1*, so support may still not be a given yet. Finally, consider that we'll probably be transitioning from LTE to LTE Advanced within the next few years, which will require phone refits yet again for the ability to handle wider, more variable frequency bands.
T-Mo has been transitionoing from HSPA+ to LTE for the last year or two. HSPA bought it some time and kept it competitive. Plus the fallout of the failed AT&T merger means T-Mobile has some access to AT&T equipment. In simple terms, T-Mobile's LTE concentrates on Band IV, AT&T's on Band XVII. Most LTE Phones sold in the US focus on those bands as well as Bands I and/or VII (which are common bands abroad). Unfortunately, US phones can't use Band III (the de facto common global band) because it's an active military frequency.
The current issue with Sprint is that, not only do they still use CDMA for voice comms and as a fallback (VoLTE is not ready yet), but their LTE bands are different (Sprint uses Bands XXV, XXVI, and thanks to Clearwire, XLI, I think) and not on more typical bands. Meaning Sprint LTE phones run the risk of not supporting the AT&T/T-Mobile bands or dropping support for international LTE bands like I and VII.
Actually you can, as it has to be stored somewhere for the CPU to implement. Microcode is like any other program. It has to be stored somewhere and then sent to the CPU to actually use. If it isn't already hardwired into the CPU (which you're saying it's not), then it has to be stored somewhere, and since we're talking an initial startup microcode, it's bound to be internal to the CPU since it can't rely on external inputs this early.
"Interestingly enough, they're still available. For around 1300 Euros."
Most of those are high-performance cards meant to pour out megabits of entropy per second. You need that much entropy in a high-activity secure server (like an SSL trandaction server) to prevent the server getting blocked.
For lower-performance needs, other devices are available for a few hundred quid each. Some use USB, others PCI, still others 1x PCIe.
The cheapest prebuilt home solution, the Entropy Key, is now about as backordered as the Raspberry Pi was in its early days (BTW, the Pi's SoC has a HWRNG in it). So hacks are coming up with alternative ways to feed decent amounts of entropy to systems that may need it (like systems that do more than your average load of encrypted traffic). You can find plans that use webcams, sound cards (with or without radios plugged into them), even a smoke detector (the alpha particles from the Americium can be detected). They have their uses provided you whitewash the raw data first. I've been looking for a bodge-it-yourself solution that can use more reliable sources like avalance diodes or thermal noise, but the ones posted on the web are a bit beyond breadboard hacks. Oh well. For now, I'll settle for an old, cheap (read: noisy) webcam with the lens taped over (not this time, Big Brother).
If that were true, wouldn't at least one company simply refuse to comply, and if threatened with the loss of export privileges, reply, "We lose either way; compliance means the world won't trust my company. So, given a lose-lose situation, I'd rather lose gracefully."
"and which Intel won't let you see the details of ...."
Hasn't anyone tried to decap one of these Intel CPUs to find out for themselves what's in the works? I'd find it hard to think they'd create an implementation that would fool even a direct physical examination.
I frankly don't know if nVidia or AMD will EVER fully open-source their cutting-edge stuff since that stuff's probably loaded with trade secrets each wouldn't want the other to know about. Intel doesn't care because they're the third fiddle, primarily intended for low-end performance.
"The Nintendo Problem" in other words.
Perhaps that's why Valve is taking this approach. It wouldn't be too surprising if Valve releases a SteamBox to act as a template machine for others in future. The idea is to make a PC that doesn't look like a PC, much as Nintendo had to make a game console that didn't draw the stigma consoles got in North America after the Crash of '83.
Trademarks CAN be shared if they're differnt enough from each other.
For example, in America, the term "Cracker Barrel" is trademarked twice. One is for a line of natural cheeses from Kraft (don't knock them here--the cheeses here are real, just not fancy). The other is for a restaurant/novelty store chain with a distinct 19th-century motif. There has been no complaints from the USPTO over the matter since they are essentially non-competitive.
Just gave it a spin for the sake of it. One problem: I use LibreOffice.
Guess what? No ODF support.
US law does have laws against that, too (here we call it "dumping"), but since alternatives already exist that are not only free but FOSS, trying to assert dumping is going to be a hard sell, especially since the tie-in to Google Drive means they can claim competition by a different business model.
Except they can't because they used the VERY generic term "Office". They can trademark the complete phrase "Microsoft Office", but not the word "Office" because it's too broad. Therefore, QuickOffice (which is different enough in name and logo to MS Office) would get a pass. Also, Microsoft would have to answer why they didn't make such an assertion with StarOffice/OpenOffice/LibreOffice previously (there is IIRC a statute of limitations for filing a trademark infringement claim).
Not even with Google Docs, which can ALSO access Google Drive, meaning you can edit on the desktop and have access on the phone PDQ?
"what network would the be connecting to?"
Probably a whispernet. Black-and-white Kindles employ this technique. As for signal propagation, any bets one of the pins goes to an antenna that's mounted within the motherbard as a requirement or the like?
Except 3G is STILL wireless, and the 3G tech is pretty well known. Radio transmissions should be pretty easy to pick up, and once you know enough about what is happening, you can probably conduct Faraday cage experiments to support your findings.
Besides, the 3G part of vPro is hardly secret, as it's being advertised as an anti-theft/remote-brick device.