Comment Re:So it runs Doom ? (Score 1) 92
But can it play Crysis?
Geostationary orbit is A COMPLETELY ARBITRARY THING
From the second sentence in the summary: "It will pass just below satellites in geostationary orbit,"
If they were honest, would they operate this kind of business?
Honesty has nothing to do with it. That's the way the patent system/IP laws are structured.
The idea is to have a timer that would automatically disable the equipment unless it received an enable signal, either from a satellite or removable medium.
This them becomes a soft spot for enemies. If you use satellites, then this becomes a major weakness in a fight against any first or second world country as they will start shooting satellites down. In the case of some sort of USB like key, that then becomes a top priority to capture for the enemy.
If you have a few weeks to bomb the stolen equipment before it can be used, and the enemy has to invest a lot of high-tech resources into cracking the systems, then that's probably good enough.
In the case of ISIS, the US had plenty of time to bomb this hardware before it became an issue. For whatever reason, those in charge chose not to. It's standard practice for the military to bomb its own downed aircraft during a conflict to ensure the enemy doesn't get any useful goodies from it.
I don't know what this poll is asking regarding technology. If it's computers/internet. Then perhaps a little. But I was in my teens when coupler modems became available (affordable to the public anyhow), and the first modem I had was 300 bd. There wasn't anything like the net back then. Half the security measures were simply not giving out the number to the system to connect to it. I think high security was adding a "5" after "1234" for the password.
I did build a high pitched noise generator with parts from Radio Shack. It made the drug dogs go nuts when they went though the school halls. They'd probably bring in the bomb squad if they found it in a locker today.
With booze and gambling and hookers?
...And forget the booze and gambling.
-Bender
...why didn't science just do this in the damn first place?!
It's never been cost effective. The same way safe coal mining and 100% safe fly ash disposal isn't cost effective. If you need to expend more energy to deal with the waste than you get out of it, it's not worth it.
....but what does the "short-lived radioactive elements" dissolve into? surely not *nothing*?
If we get it to the point that it's economical to launch in a rocket, then there's so little left that storage shouldn't be a big deal. And if it's safe enough to put on top of a rocket, then it doesn't need to be removed from our biosphere.
Most of the really radioactive waste is extremely dense. So it gets insanely expensive to get it out of earth gravity well. To make matters worse, we have no space launch systems that are reliable enough to use for this type of disposal. It's one thing to have a bunch of highly radioactive material sitting around in a shielded location. It's an entirely bigger problem to have a failed launch blasting toxic crap all over hundreds or thousands of square miles/kilometers.
It's also a waste of of non-renewable material with a high amount of potential energy that we may be able to do something with sometime in the future as our understanding of physics progresses.
Even ignoring the huge amount of energy required to launch something into space, our current launch vehicles are not the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation either.
I realize you are an AC troll and this is way off topic. But it's apparent you don't know a damn thing about carburetors.
Obviously fuel injection is fantastic, and you'd only choose a carb over FI for specific reasons. But it's like comparing an HP scientific calculator to a Babbage engine. One is a very functional and practical solution using modern technology. The other is amazing tech from the past and frankly a mechanical marvel.
FI is going to look pretty silly when we're all driving around with Mr. Fusion powering our cars.
Grim Reefer, " I have 13 FF windows open with 5 to 24 tabs open in each." Yes, just try exactly this on Chrome and report back on memory usage.
I have no desire to install Chrome. Partly because I get sick of other programs trying to sneak it onto my computer. But I'm curious about what you are inferring. Will Chrome perform better than FF? Or worse? TIA.
I prefer FF over other browsers. But it's mainly because it's what I'm used to and the tree style tabs. I'm sure you can get the same for Chrome. But I haven't gotten around to checking.
FF became pretty unstable a few versions ago, though I don't recall which. It seemed to be a memory leak or something. It got up to around 2.5 GB of RAM and then became unresponsive and would eventually crash. My system has 16 GB of RAM, and was never near 100%. The next release took a little longer to reach this point, and the one after that was even longer. I think the version before 32 only crashed once on me. And 32 is open right now as I post this using 2.1 GB of RAM. Granted, I have 13 FF windows open with 5 to 24 tabs open in each.
Welcome to amerika..
FTFY.
Let them turn it off whenever they want, but if the camera is off and something happens, the officer may be assumed to be lying about events.
That's all well and good. Until criminals realize they can disable or break the camera.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
