Comment Re:Shutter (Score 1) 324
There is a light on the current Glass but it is software controlled and can be disabled.
There is a light on the current Glass but it is software controlled and can be disabled.
A visible physical shutter that can be moved over the camera lens to prove that one is not recording video. I realize that it does not deal with people not near enough to see the shutter but at least it will put the people at the table at ease. This is not a perfect solution but it might help.
The only difference is that a pill is passive while this method actively embeds objects into the stomach wall.
The motors made their way to the mice's stomachs, embedded in their stomach linings, and released their tiny payloads: nano-size flakes of gold.
No, the motors were swallowed by the mouse where they interacted with the acid in the stomach and began to move. Some of them eventually encountered the stomach lining where they embedded themselves. There was no payload release.
The research represented a major step toward putting microbots to work in human medicine, where they could one day ferry drugs efficiently into specific organs or even specific cells.
These are motors with a payload not microbots.
Here are a few issues;
They only work in an acid environment.
This method could not be uses in blood supply as it produces gas which could cause an embolism.
They have no way of discerning where they are. To deliver a drug to a specific point that is necessary.
This may be a step to delivering drugs to the stomach or intestines but not really applicable to the rest of the body.
Unguided delivery device.
Take a look at this.
That can already be done with FLIR. Which is actually better because the radar only detects movement. It would not detect someone sitting, watching tv and not moving.
How is it an ad if they aren't selling anything yet?
The difference between sales and marketing advertising is that sales advertising is designed to sell an existing product while marketing advertising is designed to get the product in the mind of people who might eventually purchase it. In marketing the product need on yet exist. This is a marketing ad. It is the same as all the ads for movies that are yet to be released.
From the article.
By hooking up his laptop directly to the device he says he would have been able to unlock doors, start the car and gather engine information, but he chose not to “weaponise” his exploits
SO only direct connect has been proven.
The researcher noted that for a remote attack to take place, the concomitant u-blox modem, which handles the connection between Progressive’s servers and the dongle, would have to be compromised too. Such systems have been exploited in the past, as noted in a paper here from Ralf-Philipp Weinmann, from the University of Luxembourg.
Remote access has only been shown by similar systems.
Call me when you can actually show a remote exploit through the dongle.
The second you disable another drone in flight you become liable for any damage it does coming down. If someone gets injured or something gets damaged the owner of the attack drone in on the hook. It could also be considered destruction of private property if what the drone was doing was legal.
You brought up winter first, then changed the goalposts again, anything to distract from the facts.
The only thing I added to the conversation was "winding through mountains" which also adds to the cost of rail transport. Since the subject of the discussion is the cost of rail transport I do no see that as changing the goal posts. You are the one that can not seem to handle additional information. What supported facts have you brought to the discussion? As far as I can see, none.
You lie like we can't just look up and see your bald faced lies. Your parents must be so proud.
You can call me a liar all you want. It does not detract from the fact that I have independent information that supports my position while you have opinions based on living next to a rail line. Would living next to CERN make one be qualified to make unsupported claims about particle physics. Even your one claim about not clearing snow is proven to be false. The rest of your claims being "no it isn't".
Again, you have no references to back up your uninformed opinions while I have cited several articles that support mine. How do you dismiss the article about how running CP rail in unseasonably low temperatures costing an extra $61 million? Until you can cite something to support your claims I will not be responding.
You brought up winter first, then changed the goalposts again,
Wow, you can't even follow a conversation. The first mention of summer was by you.
he "cost" of winding through mountains is the same summer or winter.
And it's based in more facts than you have,
How about this?
Unseasonably frigid weather in 2013-2014 -- with temperatures falling to as low as minus 37 degrees Celsius (minus 35 Fahrenheit) in central Canada -- forced both railroads to run slower and shorter trains and spend more on fuel and other items
Winter-related costs such as snow removal trimmed Calgary- based Canadian Pacific’s first-quarter profit by 30 cents to 35 cents a share, equivalent to as much as $61 million.
Those conditions are a normal winter in Alaska. Rail in winter is expensive.
You have a wrong opinion, and selection bias.
You have no selection bias because you have shown nothing to back up you opinions. Show something that supports your opinion and I may believe you.
Wow what a ad hominem attack. Your facts are so weak that you stoop to attacking me callimg me a liar an psychopath.
They don't clear the tracks for snow.
Then what are these? Take a look at this video. Not an avalanche in sight.
If trains were more expensive than boats, why is there discussion on building the line?
Because it is not billionaires tat are talking about it. It is the Chinese government.
If you thought it uneconomical in ideal conditions, why invent lies about the worst running conditions?
Because it is easier to show problems in worst case conditions that in conditions that are closer to viable. You still haven't proven anything I have said is a lie. Other than a picture of a snow plow you have shown no references.
Didn't think your lies would be read by someone who lives a few miles from the train pictured above, and has friends on the Alaskan rail, and knows more about trains in Alaska than you?
Sorry but living next to a rail track and listening to the occasional train does not make you a train and shipping expert. Without references all you are saying is opinion.
A government could do so without fixing the currency to gold.
Sure a government can fix the price of gold without going to the gold standard but the government can not go to the gold standard without fixing the price of gold. See the difference?
I have no idea why a nation would want to do so, our time interval just seems a legislative fluke.
Read the wikipedia article on Bretton Wood. It tells you many reasons why the US abandoned it. The main reason is that the gold standard does not allow for flexibility to deal with economic change.
Your chart does show the price of gold roughly doubling during the interval so the prohibition doesn't seem to fix the price all by itself.
In 1934 the Gold Reserve Act changed the value of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. That is government price fixing.
The additional "cost" to keep the line open is negligible.
Based on what? Every time it snows the tracks would need to be cleared and that is not a negligible cost.
The "cost" of winding through mountains is the same summer or winter. And that directly contradicts your previous statement.
I never said that summer traffic was cheap either; you did.
The cost of a train winding through mountains in the winter is still much less than your cargo ship. And much quicker.
Care to show me your data on that?
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
