No the problem is in the hardware.
If there are super specific timing requirements then invent a new standard with the commands you need. Then put a little microprocessor on the serial port end in charge of waiting for some particular signal and responding in precisely 23 milliseconds. Or whatever.
Mine never has.
Well, if I was really into industrial espionage I might do something like bring a USB stick loaded with my zipper program, but instead of storage set to look like a keyboard. Plug it in, open Notepad and have it type the executable out into a file.
I've noticed that a lot of places disable USB storage but don't disable file execution from writable directories.
Sounds like the real answer to this problem is an improved USB to serial dongle. If this is a serious problem for electronics engineers, they are the perfect people to fix it. Whatever the problem with the USB to serial interface is, fix it. Then sell your improved serial port adapter for $100. Profit!
Windows 8 doesn't slow anything down. Check some benchmarks. It is faster than XP in most things. Here's one from a casual Google: http://itnews2day.com/2013/02/...
Windows XP is 32-bit only. Windows XP does not like hyperthreading or quad core CPUs. XP doesn't perform well on high bandwidth WAN connections. Its old SMB file transfer speeds are atrocious on gigabit LANs. It doesn't allow threaded GPU accesses and only supports old DirectX versions. It doesn't understand Advanced Format hard drives or SSDs. USB 3 on XP is buggy as hell. (in my experience)
If you installed a super modern GPU with 3 GB video RAM on XP, it would fall over and die because it has to map those 3 GB into 4 GB of space.
So, in at least this case, the OS didn't slow down. And without it new hardware wouldn't work at all.
Sure you can. But what is Chrome on iOS? It is a user interface skin over Safari is all it is. Not actually Chrome.
Of course you have rights. So does your employer. And using your employer's network gives your employer the right to see what is traveling over his network.
They shouldn't. A simple second level of encryption such as an encrypted ZIP file defeats any automatic scanning for confidential keywords or anything similar.
Eh. Except that a blue screen or if you have to do a forced power-off will lose data and require a chkdsk run. I ran my desktop that way for a little while (with a UPS) but it had problems.
"White Flight"
What a racist term. As if it is white people that keep an area valuable and crime free.
It's actually middle class and upper class flight, as well-off black, asian and hispanic people don't want to live in a blighted crime-ridden area either.
While it is an interesting technology with cool potential, a lot of folks don't want to be constantly filmed by Google Glass wearers for privacy issues. Like, the thought that all that Google Glass data will belong to the NSA on a whim of a secret court judge. Google doesn't give a rat's ass about people's privacy. They just want to sell their glasses, and they'll do it. And it's their right to do so, but don't expect people to love them for it.
People are in general, morons. Worried about Google Glass? People can be recording video from a cell phone in a pocket RIGHT NOW. I walked around with mine recording for 3.5 hours just to see what it was like. (Boring and bounced worse than the Blair Witch video.) People have dash cams in their cars. People have their houses and offices wired with security cameras that do motion detection and upload 1080p high-def video to the cloud.
Every store you walk into, every car you walk in front of, anybody holding a cell phone...
If you aren't alone inside a building that you control, you have no privacy and your face can end up on Youtube at any moment. Get over it.
'What do we get for that DRM?'
Did "we" vote on this? Let's look at their members list: Apple, AT&T, Facebook, Csico, Comcast, Cox, Google, Huawei, HP, Intel, LG, Netflix, Verizon, Yahoo!, Zynga and
And those are just the companies I recognize that have a serious amount of money to be made on DRM (hello, Netflix?!). If I examine closer, there are much smaller players like, say, Fotosearch Stock Photography and Footage that sound like they would gladly vote for DRM in order to "protect" their products/satiate content owners.
only about 1 trillion tons of carbon can be burned and the resulting gas spewed into the atmosphere. Just over half that amount has already been emitted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and at current rates of energy consumption, the trillionth ton will be released around 2040
Do they honestly believe there is some total quantity of emissions that can be tolerated? I mean as opposed to a rate of emissions - like annually. We know that the system recycles carbon taking it out of the atmosphere, and we know that the rate it's removed increases as the concentration increases. So if we assume there is a limit, it should be on the rate of carbon emissions and not the total emitted over time.
If you read the "Summary for Policymakers" PDF document linked in the summary, there is no talk of "total quantity of emissions tolerated" or any of this trillionth ton idea. Instead it appears to be talking about . In fact, it appears to reside solely in that New York Times article that very clearly says:
To stand the best chance of keeping the planetary warming below an internationally agreed target of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels and thus avoiding the most dangerous effects of climate change, the panel found, only about 1 trillion tons of carbon can be burned and the resulting gas spewed into the atmosphere.
Just over half that amount has already been emitted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and at current rates of energy consumption, the trillionth ton will be released around 2040, according to calculations by Myles R. Allen, a scientist at the University of Oxford and one of the authors of the new report.
(emphasis mine) So to answer your question: The trillion tons is an estimate of what we would need to burn in order to hit an internationally agreed limit that would likely produce the worst effects of climate change. The number of tons we burn is even an estimate. It's all estimates because we don't have parallel Earths where we can keep controls and change one variable to see what happens. If you don't accept the ability of making estimates with levels of certainty, there is no way to make any statements about the effects of putting carbon into our atmosphere on a global scale.
These guys are looking dumber all the time.
I suppose it would appear that way if you only get your information from The New York Times and throw away everything they're actually saying.
Directly providing the power to vaporize a person is not the elegant way to do it. The correct, elegant mad scientist method is to use the power contained in the vaporized mass to power the vaporization.
Consider if you develop a means to "program" a plasma such that it generates a contracting magnetic field that causes fusion inside the vaporizing object and then absorbs some of the energy from this fusion reaction to power itself.
Now you're talking! Now you've got an effect that can vaporize any object provided you can provide the initial energy requirement.
There could be variants on this. Perhaps you've got an effect that flips matter into antimatter and absorbs some of the released energy to continue the effect.
If this is an expanding effect instead of a collapsing effect you've got a world killer like the weapons in Ender's Game.
Except that on a LAN FTP is almost the only protocol I can rely on to get high speed data transfers. SFTP blocks at about 30 MB/s when FTP can easily get 90.
If the Linux distros would be reasonable and enable the "none" crypto on SSH it would be a good thing. If I explicitly ask for no crypto then why are they making it hard for me to get what I want?
Yes, I know I can recompile OpenSSH for "none" crypto but it is easier to set up FTP, or even use tar and netcat.
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce
