Even with the "internet of things" I wonder how well this will work, if you make migration dependent on asking the "losing" carrier then that losing carrier has every motivation to make that process as slow and difficult as possible. If you allow the "gaining" carrier to grab the device you run the risk of devices being migrated without the owners permission by dodgy carriers.
SD cards have the same.
Note: the lock tab on a SD card doesn't actually do anything inside the card, it merely activates a contact on the socket.
Whether that contact is used to implement a hardware write lock, a software write lock or no write lock at all is entirely dependent on the designer of the system you plug the SD card into.
I'm not convinced of that. Swapping a sim is something I can do myself quickly and easilly/. ill I be able to reprogram these myself or will I have to call up one or possiblly both of the carriers involved and ask them to do it? how long will that take? hours? days? will scummy "virtual carriers" be able to "hijack" devices and bring them onto their "network" without the owners permission? will it be reasonablly possible to transfer a device between carriers in different countries?
If they planned to do that then they were dumb to collect them into a single address like that.
An address isn't actually a public key, it's the hash of a public key. So what you actually need to find to spend the bitcoins is an ECDSA keypair where the public key hashes to the address. I presume they did it this way to make addresses shorter (at the cost of making transactions in the blockchain longer).
But the principle remains, it's not "impossible" to go from a bitcoin address to a set of keys that can be used to spend coins from that addresses but it is "computationally infeasible" given current public knowledge of the crypto primitives involved and current or reasonablly forseable computing power.
What really matters is both the ammount of current through the body and the path it takes. With shocks from low impedance sources (like the mains) the current through the body is determined by the supply voltage and the resistance of the body. So while voltage isn't the only factor it certainly does make a big difference. Double the supply voltage and you will double the current increasing the risk of the current being high enough to be fatal.
Voltages under about 50V (the exact limit varies by what regulatory body you look at) are classed as "extra low voltage" and generally regarded
220VAC 60Hz at 30A on the other hand, would more than likely result in muscle seizures and likely clamping, eventually followed by death by one of the previously mentioned methods.
I know plenty of people who have had shocks of UK 240V mains (heck i've had several myself when I was younger and less careful). It certainly can kill but it's not "certain death".
POTS phone lines run power at 5 V DC, but the ring signal is generated by increasing the voltage. The spec is to bump the voltage up to 20 or 30 V DC (it's been a while since I worked with these).
Do you have a source for that claim
My understanding was that POTS lines were about 48V DC idle with the phone on hook, dropping to about 10V-20V when the phone is off hook and with an 90V or so AC voltage superimposed on the DC voltage during ringing.
In the UK they fortify food but rather than putting a full selection in each food they only put a subset in. For example bread is usually forified with vitamin C but no others. Cereals seem to be fortified with a load of vitamins but not C. So if you eat a lot of different foods you get a reasonable coverage but if you eat a diet with little variety then you can easilly end up missing some out.
out of interest what aspect(s) of it do you find to be a PITA?
Phone and cable TV services are required to do certain things that were considered to be in the public interest. Phone companies were required to put in place special infrastructure for priority emergency calls. TV companies were required to carry local broadcast channels if the channel asked for it. Historically this made sense, when the cable networks were built in the US* they were providing totally different services, so it made sense for them to be subject to different regulations.
However since then techology has changed, you can use the phone over your cable modem using VOIP and you can watch TV over your telco provided internet connection and you can watch TV and use VOIP over your IP based fiber connection. In many cases the VOIP and IPTV services are even bundled with the internet connection.
So you have three groups of companies providing effectively the same services but subject to vastly different regulations. IMO there is a need to decide if those regulations are still in the public interest and if they are deemed to be in the public interest to figure out how to apply them fairly to last mile communication providers who use vastly different infrastructures.
So I would agree with you that the regs need to be reviewed and updated but I also agree with the GP that google seem to want a privilage that is given to telcos and cablecos without taking on the responsibilities that come with being either being a telco or begin a cableco and I could see why existing telcos and cablecos would be rightly pissed off about that.
* Here in the UK things played out a bit differently, our cable companies were also phone companies from the start and ran analog phone pairs alongside the cable TV coax.
Rural electrification doesn't require a separate circuit for each customer.
Electricity supply requires progressively higher capacity circuits as you combine more customers. Rural electricity supply also requires a substantial outdoor transformer for every isolated customer or cluster of customers.
Most* FTTH deployments i've read details of seem to be going for a PON system where a fiber from the exchange is shared between about 30 subscribers through a passive splitter. So in terms of number of circuits from the exchange it's probablly less than the party lines of old.
* B4RN being an exception, they went for seperate fibers from their switching locations to the end users.
I'm not aware of any other similar city "corporations" in the UK.
"With the notable exceptions of the City of London Corporation and the Laugharne Corporation, the term has fallen out of favour in the United Kingdom, but the concept remains central to local government in the United Kingdom, as well as former British colonies such as India and Canada."
Ubuntu precise comes with gcc 4.6 and glibc* 2.15. So does Debian wheezy. So unless google is really really slow at updating their internal variant of ubuntu to the latest LTS release of ubuntu this shouldn't be an issue now (though it may have been an issue in the past and driven people to migrate).
* Strictly eglibc but afaict the difference is just in details surrounding some ports
Selling and buying power is not in itself a bad thing.
Using your neighbours as a battery makes your unpredictable generation source look more viable than it really is and depending on the billing model may be effectively externalising your costs on them. This applies regardless of whether you are talking about individual users with solar panels on their roofs or whole countries.
Supply must match the demand curve
And to do that you conventionally used a mixture of plants. You used something with high capital costs but low running costs (coal, nuclear, possiblly CCGT) to run all the time and then you use something that has low capital costs but high running costs to cover the peaks. You may also use hydro dams (which have the unusual characterstic of having a peak power much higher than their continuous power due to the limited water supply) if they are available.
So where do wind and solar fit into this? not very well! they don't provide a continuous base load and they don't provide power on demand either. They provide power when the weather is right which may or may not match up with when you need power. So you still need the hydro dams or fossil fuel plants to cover load peaks that come when the weather is not right for solar/wind and especially in colder climates you often need pretty much the same ammount of those fossil fuel plants as you would have needed if you didn't have the solar and wind, you just run them a smaller proportion of the time.
and no method of power generation does that by itself, including coal and nuclear..
BS, it is certainly possible to follow the demand curve with a single type of generation. It's just that for large scale loads it's usually more economical to use a mix.