Not to sound like a broken record (does that phase mean anything to people or did I just show my age), but I'm not sure why this surprises anyone. It's not about security. It's about security theater. And until the TSA fundamentally changes the way they do things, it always will be.
There's *actual* crime happening every minute of every day online and this is the target the FCC is wasting its time and resources on?
Come on. Google effed up. They admitted they effed up. There's absolutely no evidence that Google did anything or was planning to do anything with this data and all available evidence points to a mistake rather than anything "evil". And besides, if you don't want your data sniffed, THEN ENCRYPT YOUR STUPID WI-FI CONNECTION!
Please FCC... we pay your salaries. Go after some actual fraud attempts rather than wasting your time (and my tax dollars) on this.
-S
If ("journalist employer" == "Fox News")
{
Add Paragraph
Hire wack job pseudo scientist to provide doomsday prediction
Blame Obama
}
Many years ago, I was going to see the play "Wait Until Dark" (Marisa Tomei and Quentin Tarantino were in the play the time, neither of them very good, but that's besides the point).
I mentioned to my Mom that I was going and she said "Oh, is that the one where he uses the light in the refrigerator at the end?"
"Gee, thanks. I don't know. I've never seen it before."
I spent the play looking at that damn refrigerator waiting for the spoiler.
Anyway, someone going to see a murder mystery has no business researching it online except for maybe reading reviews of known publications if they must. If they look at the Wikipedia article or discussions of the work somewhere else, then it's their own fault for getting spoiled...
-S
... those same people will continue to use their pet's name as the password to their online bank account.
-S
He gets flack about it because he stood up there talking about something he knew absolutely nothing about, babbling words that some lobbyist paid him (er, um... donated to his campaign) to say.
A shining example of the worst our legislative process has to offer...
-S
Plot the count vs. distance table on a chart and set the count to a log scale. Up to 17 it's almost perfectly linear. I wonder why that is?
-S
IANAL, but....
In the Nevada desert? State owned property? Then I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. However, if it's on private property, then they can probably stipulate what gets done with the photos. Stupid? Yes. Legal? Maybe.
Photographers, print this out and carry it with you at all times: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. It was written by lawyers who do actually know a thing or two about photography and the law.
-S
FLAC and a nice pdf. That's all I want.
>I wonder what a DDoS would do to it
Blue face of death?
I was going to just mod you up, but I figured your post would soon be at 5 anyway. (if not, mod parent up!)
Yes, you're absolutely right. Lots of bad physics and a completely incorrect conclusion in that article. If there is an improvement in the thermal interface, the heatsink should get HOTTER. All of the heat goes somewhere. That's the first law of thermodynamics... conservation of energy.
You can break it down to a thermal resistance model which is functionally equivalent to an electrical resistance model. Difference in temperature is the "voltage" that drives the flow of heat (current). The heat (current) is a fixed value. The resistances are the various materials the heat has to flow through to get to the air. It can take many parallel and series paths to get out and you can build a resistance network to calculate heat flow through each "path". One way is through the IC leads, into the board, and eventually to the air... or the most direct path is through the heat spreader, through the thermal interface material, into the heatsink and eventually to the air. If the heatsink reads a lower temperature, that means less heat is flowing through the heatsink and that heat is taking a more difficult path to get out and thus the IC junction temperature is HIGHER. That's BAD.
So yes, the math doesn't add up. The thermal interface between the IC and the heatsink should be spread so thin that the thermal resistance across it is almost negligible. Thermal grease is only there generally because it's it's much higher conductivity than air and if you don't have it, all you have is air in all of the little surface imperfections of the heatsink and heat slug on the IC. Adding solid particles to the grease only serves to hold the heatsink and IC heat slug further apart, so even if it's great conductivity, it's generally the wrong thing to do.
-S
It's time for telcos to stop being telcos and start being wireless data providers. Selling bits instead of services is fundamental to net neutrality. I know that breaks their business models, but too bad. On the iPhone, they already sell apps that use some amount of bandwidth. They shouldn't get to pick and choose the ones that affect their outdated business model. If they just sold bits and bandwidth independent of what kind of data is being carried on them, then this wouldn't be an issue and that's how it SHOULD be.
I know this isn't going to change overnight, but I fully support the FCC looking into this. It's nice to know that under the new administration they're taking a pro-consumer stance instead of pro-business stance.
-S
OK, what am I missing here? 0.5nm is 16 times smaller than 8nm. On a 2D platter, that's 256 times more dense, not 1000 times more dense.
-S
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
