|
|
Yes, it would be that bad.
Citation needed. The paper does not in fact specify the feature size, but it does say it's related to wire size. I think it's much smaller than you think.
Years of welding experience.
Just out of curiosity: Given a "black box" implementation of a random number generator, is it possible to test its output sufficiently to gain some faith in its proper randomness?
Seeing as such a piece of hardware need not (and hopefully would not) have any inputs, only an output, it's hard to imagine how someone might hide (and later trigger) a back-door mechanism that could change its behavior post-testing. (But I'm sure there is some way to do it that I'm not thinking of
...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares... That's what $14 Billion can buy.
Note that the estimated cost of a single nuclear attack by terrorists is between $250 billion and $1 trillion.
So never mind the electricity by-product; if this program kept nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands, then it was well worth it for that reason alone.
But is the resolution actually that bad? Because that would be quite useless. You'd have to machine the final product in practically every case.
I guess we'll never know, because the linked article was hosted on a cracker jack box. Techienews indeed.
Yes, it would be that bad. I can't imagine there's really any use for a "printer" like that
Its sort of a cool hack, but
hey, dickheads keep the economy going by supplying customers and cash to
Sure, but I don't think this particular invention is going to help -- the moment a burnout becomes easy for anyone to do, it will cease being useful as a way to impress anyone.
In fact, this may poison the dickhead well, as now whenever someone does a burnout they will be under suspicion of being the dickhead equivalent of a script kiddie.
Happened over two billion years ago and we're just hearing about it now!? Typical.
Its Slashdot
It's hard to imagine that a tech company would screen candidates based on area codes these days. I've been living in Seattle for over five years and still have a 415 (San Francisco) area code. I think people tend not to change their phone numbers when moving anymore.
That being said, I'm graduating soon with a PhD in bioinformatics, have an MS in computer science, and I'm not getting any interviews with large tech companies in the area. Maybe I do need a local phone number...
I would bet anything but the real big companies always does. Local hires (and candidates when it comes time to interview) are a lot cheaper. If your cell phone doesn't match where you live, you should indicate where you live on your resume.
The GPs suggestion of pretending to live in Seattle is a bad idea. I've hired LOTS of people over the years, and if anyone ever pulled that, their resume would be round filed no matter how good they might be.
IMO, if he wants to live in Seattle, and wants to find a job there, his best bet is to just move.
Okay, let me amend my statement, having looked at the Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia isn't wrong. You just made up a number that doesn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia... for some bizarre reason. Did you make up a number to make the 10% figure worse than it is? The real numbers supported your case better.
Would they? I'm not so sure. According to Wikipedia, the cost of power to drive 25 miles in an electric car is in the $1-$2 range.
Wikipedia is wrong. Most EVs get between 3-4 miles per kwh, there's about a 20% loss in charging the battery, so you're looking at 7.5-10 kwh of electricity from the mains to go 25 miles. Only in Alaska and Hawaii is electricity expensive enough to cost $2 to go 25 miles. The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.
So I agree with you -- very few people (even the environmentally conscious who tend to buy EVs) would care about the extra dime a day it costs, if it means easy charging. If you cut range 10%, we'd be pissed, but not increase costs 10%.
That said, I doubt its only 10% loss...
I don't agree. I think the karma is spot on. The karma is not for what they did but what they could have done with it.
That would only make sense if they knew what they were stealing, and they knew the implications of stealing it, and they stole it anyway.
Considering the price of energy and the whole economic crisis, a lot of people would probably rather plug in manually if the losses are any more than a couple of percent. Even 1% would probably put a lot of people off if they were aware of it.
Would they? I'm not so sure. According to Wikipedia, the cost of power to drive 25 miles in an electric car is in the $1-$2 range. So even a 10% inefficiency would only cost drivers an additional 10 to 20 cents per commute. Would people spend that extra money to avoid the hassle of plugging and unplugging their car every day? Based on the number of dimes I see abandoned on the ground because nobody can be bothered to pick them up, I think many people would -- especially those who are wealthy enough to afford an electric car in the first place.
If this device recharges more slowly than the plug-in method, OTOH, that could be a problem.
As many others pointed out, unlike a place of business, the school is publicly funded
The public actually has no access to any of that unless otherwise noted. Even being on those fields outside a permitted school activity is trespassing.
I'm not sure why people seem to think public funding has anything to do with rights of use. The DoD is publicly funded, but I can't hop in an F16, or go for a walk on a secured base. I can't walk into an elementary school and plop on down on a couch to use their Internet. I can't go use the police shooting range because I don't feel like paying at a public one. Hell, even in something explicitly public -- I can't go and set up a tent and have a party in a public park.
If it's a public school, then a tax-paying citizen can reasonably claim he has already paid for the electricity in question. Should we now ask special permission to walk down the sidewalk or drive down the street? No, of course not. We as taxpayers have already paid for it.
The policeman was way, way out of line. He should find himself without a job in short order. Boneheads like him give commanders ulcers with the PR fallout.
Except you can't... you can't go to the public school and use its fields without permission. You can't go into its wood shop and fire up a table saw. You can't sit down in the library and use their wireless. Just like you can't walk into town hall and make photo copies, or grab a cup of coffee from the break room in the police station.
Your fundamental premise is absolutely incorrect. You paying for it, as a taxpayer, is completely irrelevant.
I'm getting pretty tired of seeing extension cords snaking through parking lots and parking garages.
I wondered how I would power an electric in my underground (no outlets) and have yet to see the extension cord snaking where I live. I assumed that the parking lot/garage would just forbid it by unplugging or cutting those extensions.
In most cases, you wouldn't power an electric. The costs aren't insignificant -- it can easily be $50-$60 a month in electricity if you drive a lot. Most landlords won't absorb that themselves, and it'd be pretty surprising if they (or the power company) would run a separate meter for it.
I mostly just charge my car at home, and I have power there, but I know a few folks who had luck with apartment managers and/or work building managers agreeing to a flat $50 a month or $100/month fee to charge, once they were educated on what it represented. I have a long commute -- if there was power available in the lot at work, I'd absolutely be willing to pony up $30-$50 a month to charge at work. (It'd save me about $100 of gas, and probably cost them $8/wk in electricity.)
I'm getting pretty tired of seeing extension cords snaking through parking lots and parking garages.
I don't think the issue here is just five cents; some places can't handle the capacity this puts on their systems or wiring, or perhaps they don't want the liability of you screwing up your car thanks to faulty wiring, and suing you for it. And hell, what if some bright person uses a cord that's too light of a gauge for the current, and ends up starting a fire or hurting someone?
Charging should be done where appropriate, not wherever anyone wants.
Saying this as an owner of a car that gets plugged in, I totally agree. Stealing power is stealing power. Common sense says if you aren't paying the bill on that outlet, you ask whoever is paying for it before you plug in, you don't assume its okay.
That's good for a couple of reasons. It avoids situations like this (and this isn't, by any means, the first time its happened), and it also gets the discussion about charging going... lots of places will tell you no problem. Places that don't may or may not have legitimate concerns about it. Considering how many times I've popped breakers with my charging cable, its entirely reasonable for places to say no. This isn't plugging in a cell phone charger, its plugging in a device that nearly maxes out a typical residential circuit.
The thing that is stupid about this article isn't that the police considered it theft (it absolutely, unequivocally is), but rather that the police arrested someone for the theft of something worth so little. I could *almost* see a justification if the guy was arrested on the spot because the officer didn't know the electricity was worth so little, but after a few days of "investigation", it should've been obvious that the amount falls well below the lower limit of what people are arrested for where theft is concerned.
IMO, the guy who plugged is car in is the jackass in this -- its because of people like him that people who actually *ask* run into problems.
Pause for storage relocation.