The plates55 forum is now active.
Anyone that would like to volunteer to manage the forum please text me or email
Viewed 5405 times by 1280 viewers
Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
The RIAA alerted the U.S. Government to several notorious pirate websites this week, including The Pirate Bay. While the inclusion of the infamous torrent site doesn’t come as a surprise, the RIAA did raise a novel issue. The music labels point out that The Pirate Bay has embraced the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, which they believe makes it harder to seize and trace the site’s funds. While the former is certainly true, a quick look at TPB’s Bitcoin wallet easily reveals where the donation money is being spent.
This week the RIAA submitted a new list of “notorious websites” to the U.S. Government, sites that the labels would like to see disappear.
The Pirate Bay also made it onto the list and the RIAA points out that despite the criminal convictions of its founders, the site continues to operate. The identities of the current administrators of the site remain a mystery to the music industry group.
Interestingly, the RIAA also brings up the fact that The Pirate Bay is now accepting donations through the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Litecoin. This apparently complicates law enforcement efforts to track and seize funds of the torrent site.
“In April 2013, the site started accepting donations from the public by Bitcoin, a digital currency, which operates using peer-to-peer technology,” RIAA notes.
“There are no central authority or banks involved which makes it very difficult to seize or trace Bitcoin funds. In May 2013, the site also started accepting Litecoin, another peer-to-peer based internet currency.”
Bitcoin does indeed make it harder to seize funds, as law enforcement would need access to the computer where the wallet is kept. However, tracing where the Pirate Bay donations go isn’t all that hard. In fact, all transactions are visible to the public and we can today reveal where some of the Pirate Bay donations went.
In total, TPB has raised close to 100 Bitcoins spread over two addresses, which is roughly $20,000 at the current exchange rate. A quick look at the current wallet shows that The Pirate Bay received 64 Bitcoins which were all spent elsewhere.
As can be seen below, most recently 8.97 Bitcoins were spent on a fundraiser for a public audit of the open source encryption software TrueCrypt. Before that, part of the donations were spent on a charity rally from Dover to Mongolia. Of course, Bitcoin addresses can also be used anonymously so it’s not always possible to identify or trace the recipients.
Pirate Bay spends Bitcoin
TorrentFreak talked to The Pirate Bay team who told us that they don’t manage the Bitcoin donations themselves. They are grouped into one fund with donations to other projects, such as the PublicBitTorrent tracker, and end up in a central fund that’s managed by someone from the Pirate Party.
Considering the above, RIAA’s comments regarding the Bitcoin donations make it look much more suspicious than reality shows. But perhaps that’s exactly what the labels want to achieve?
Viewed 15304 times by 4336 viewers
With all of the running apps available for smartphones to track your distance and pace you might ask yourself do you really need a separate running watch?
The type of data recorded and what you can do with it is similar between both apps and GPS watches. Both options will provide you with core functionality of your current pace, distance traveled, elapsed time, a map of your route and other metrics to measure your performance over time.
It is the actual functionality of the two options while running that makes a separate running watch the preferred choice.
Two Tests of a Phone App vs. a GPS Watch
I performed this test on my road bike instead of running so I could have an accurate control distance with the bike computer attached to the wheel so the actual ground covered was recorded. This is the same method used to issue USATF running race course certifications (wheel measurement).
Only the Garmin matched the bike computer within a margin of .01 miles. The iPhone and Samsung Galaxy Nexus both over reported the distance traveled and pace substantially.
Bike Computer (Wheel sensor): 5.00 miles Garmin Forerunner 210: 5.01 miles iPhone 5 (with Runkeeper): 5.32 miles Samsung Galaxy Nexus (with Runkeeper): 5.29 miles
For runs of a mile or two this may not be a big deal, but if you run longer distances over 10 miles the results can be running over a mile or more less than the phone has reported! That 20 mile marathon long run you might do could end up being more like 18.5 miles.
What’s worse, your pace is being reported incorrectly. You will have a false sense of your performance capability and learn of this on race day when you run a measured course only to find your phone has betrayed you!
In another test, I wore both my Garmin Forerunner 210 and used RunKeeper on my Samsung Galaxy Nexus during the 2012 Chicago Marathon. The phone was strapped to my upper arm with a clear view of the sky. Downtown Chicago presents tough challenges for GPS devices. The tall buildings can bounce signals or block them entirely causing measurements of your location several blocks away or zig zagging across the city.
Extended underpasses such as the one at the beginning of the race block GPS entirely for nearly half a mile.
Garmin Forerunner 210: 26.58 miles Samsung Galaxy Nexus (with RunKeeper): 27.93 miles
I personally believe the Garmin recorded my actual distance covered due to any weaving or not running the exact course line over the course of the marathon. If there was any error due to the buildings or other obstructions it was minimal. The phone was not even close.
There is nothing worse than finding out your pace is not what you think it is or how you trained on race day when you discover your phone has over reported all along.
Issues with Running Apps
Reduced Accuracy The GPS sensors vary greatly between different phones. But the one thing that holds true today is they are less accurate than a dedicated GPS running watch that is specifically designed to capture precise movements. While this is reported universally among runners I wanted to see for myself.
Phones are less accurate than a GPS watch for a variety of reasons. The most common reason is due to the compact form factor of a phone along with all of the other antennas and circuitry inside there just isn’t enough room to include a more accurate GPS sensor. In some phones, the type of sensor used might also vary, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. GPS watches have a larger GPS sensor as a critical component.
For a phone, the GPS is designed to give a very good indication of your location, but not a pinpoint. Compounding the problem, phones do not take a continuous recording of your location but rather frequent “snapshots” in time. These data points are then connected by the shortest distance between the two points. This is why quick movements, turn arounds or tight turns are often cut off when reviewing phone GPS data on a running app.
Finally, the algorithms used to calculate distance traveled also vary in phones.
Phones are not designed specifically with accurate GPS distance measurement in mind the way a running watch is. A phone is a Swiss Army Knife. It can do a variety of things, but not all of them very well.
Tracking Progress While Running A big issue with running applications is viewing your distance, pace, time elapsed and possibly heart rate while you are running. Typically your phone is strapped to your arm or on a waist belt out of easy sight. Running apps have tried to counter this shortfall by having computerized voices periodically announce your pace and splits over your earphones if you are listening to music. But what if you don’t listen to music?
You will have to physically wake up the screen and make a concerted effort each time you want to check your progress. Even if you do listen to music I find the announced intervals are not often enough to stay on track if you are monitoring your pacing.
A running watch is always within easy view without altering your running form and provides immediate feedback of your run. Pacing is easy to determine at a glance. It is always on and nothing to fiddle with. There is a reason a phone’s screen turns off while running which brings up the next issue.
Battery Life Today’s smartphones can do a lot, but battery technology has not kept pace for their energy demands. A running app is not only constantly using the GPS of your phone, but also the data plan in order to update maps and sync data.
Other features such as social network sharing or uploading to websites can use even more battery. I haven’t even mentioned the draw of the battery for that big screen and any other applications the phone is running either such as your music player and countless apps in the background.
If you plan to run longer than 2-3 hours your phone may not make it through your run leaving you without a way to call for help if needed and leaving you flying blind for the rest of your run. Not good!
GPS running watch batteries can reliably capture 8-10 hours or more of activity and can remain on standby over a week. In other words, more than you will need!
Data Plans Use of a running app requires a data plan on your phone. With many carriers limiting data use or families sharing plans this can add up. While a running app may not consume a lot of data, it consumes more than a GPS running watch that uses no data plan!
Indoor Use If you want to record your running on an indoor track or even a treadmill forget it with a smartphone. Your phone’s GPS will do you no good indoors.
GPS watches are equally useless indoors, but many can be paired with an optional footpod that can record everything with a good degree of accuracy, except for plotting on a map where you ran. You simply keep on running!
I’ve owned both Polar footpod devices and Garmin footpod devices and find the Garmin devices perform really well compared to Polar.
Even better, for instances where GPS may be blocked (such as the half-mile underpass at the beginning of the Chicago marathon), a footpod serves as a secondary data source that is automatically tapped so you are never running blind waiting for the signal to return. Other runners will be in the dark.
It is our recommendation that if you are serious about your running and want a tool best suited for the job it is a great decision to invest in a GPS running watch. If you are just starting out and want to get a feel for the type of data you can record about your runs you can start with an app and then transition to a watch later.
Running apps are powerful but are just not accurate enough to be used to train reliably. This again is no fault of the app designers, but limitations of phone hardware. They also are inconvenient for measuring real time progress while you are running.
The watch I personally train and race with, along with many elite marathoners such as Ryan Hall, is the Garmin Forerunner 210.
In considering a running watch, there are a lot of features, functionality, styles and form factors to consider. I use the Garmin Forerunner 210 as it has just the information I need and enough functionality to train effectively. It can be enticing to have a running watch with more bells and whistles but in the end it is just different ways of reporting the same data.
All you really need is distance, time elapsed, pace and possibly heart rate and cadence if you use those to train. When you get home you can easily upload all of the data and analyze your run and progress while recovering!
Viewed 13378 times by 2319 viewers
Launched in 1977, the probe is vintage space hardware. At more than 36 years old, or roughly a millennium in computer years, it’s an impressive feat to have the spacecraft drifting through the material between stars. Looking at the machine’s specs is a reminder of how far electronics have come in the intervening years.
“Here on the ground, we keep up with the latest technology,” said engineer Suzanne Dodd, the Voyager project manager at JPL, with most of the science team using Mac power books these days. She recalled when she started working with the mission in 1984, they were using then-state-of-the-art desktop computers with 8-inch floppy drives.
But Voyager 1 and 2 are from an even earlier era and, being 19 billion kilometers away, “you can’t take them into the shop and upgrade them,” said Dodd.
The computers aboard the Voyager probes each have 69.63 kilobytes of memory, total. That’s about enough to store one average internet jpeg file. The probes’ scientific data is encoded on old-fashioned digital 8-track tape machines rather than whatever solid state drive your high-end laptop is currently using. Once it’s been transmitted to Earth, the spacecraft have to write over old data in order to have enough room for new observations.
The Voyager machines are capable of executing about 81,000 instructions per second. The smart phone that is likely sitting in your pocket is probably about 7,500 times faster than that. They transmit their data back to Earth at 160 bits per second. A slow dial-up connection can deliver at least 20,000 bits per second.
The Voyager probes are always sending out a signal. Voyager 1 has a 22.4-Watt transmitter – something equivalent to a refrigerator light bulb – but by the time its beacon reaches us, the power has been reduced to roughly 0.1 billion-billionth of a Watt. NASA has to use its largest antenna, a 70-meter dish, or combine two 34-meter antennas, just to hear Voyager.
The science team communicates with Voyager 1 and 2 every day and typically needs at least four hours just to run through all their health and safety checks. On a good day, researchers might spend double that time sending commands and receiving data. The spacecrafts’ original control and analysis software was written in Fortran 5 (later ported to Fortran 77). Some of the software is still in Fortran, though other pieces have now been ported to the somewhat more modern C.
Part of the Voyager probes’ longevity comes from the fact that they were robustly built and included plenty of redundant components. Even having two machines to accomplish the same task is something that NASA doesn’t do much of these days (Imagine if we had two Curiosity rovers on Mars).
Practically all of Voyager’s redundancy is gone now, either because something broke along the way or it was turned off to conserve power. Of the 11 original instruments on Voyager 1, only five remain operational: the UV spectrometer, the magnetometer, a charged particle detector, a cosmic ray detector, and the plasma wave system. But as the hardware ages, more and more things can break.
“We’re always one failure away from losing the mission,” said Dodd.
Still, the Voyager probes have far exceeded expectations. Looking at engineers’ testimonials from when it was built, Dodd said the original designers were told not to worry about reaching interstellar space and focus on making sure the Voyagers could observe Jupiter and Saturn.
“Basically they kind of ignored those directions, nodded their heads and did what they wanted to make it capable of getting to interstellar space,” she said.
As long as they are still functioning, both Voyager spacecraft will continue to collect data and send it back to us through at least 2020, and possibly until 2025. Even if something breaks and they are suddenly unable to hear anything from Earth, they will keep sending data back, repeating the same sets of observations until they run out of power.
But the radioisotope batteries on Voyager 1 and 2 are diminishing, putting out four Watts less per year. Mission managers will one day have to prioritize which instruments are most important during the voyage through interstellar space, shutting them off one by one as the years go on. After that, both probes will remain within range of our antennas until perhaps 2036. Though scientific data won’t be returned, engineering data could still come back if there is enough power to send a signal. All this means that the mission isn’t yet done.
“We’ve just stepped into interstellar space,” said Dodd. “We’re just going across the horizon line and there are many more discoveries to come.”
Viewed 13826 times by 2144 viewers
Check out this video that compares the boot speed of the iPhone 5 vs. iPhone 5c vs. iPhone 5s.
The counter was started from the exact moment each device received USB signal and stopped as soon as the lockscreen was loaded.
Viewed 10033 times by 2384 viewers
Take to the heavens! It seems like a good idea. Dodge all the obstacles of the terrestrial rat race, in the limitless, empty, peaceful skies. But it’s not as empty up there as it looks. Icarus may not have had to worry about being sucked into the engine of a jet, but even he would have faced, for example, a cloud of migrating bugs once he reached 1,000 feet above sea level. And there’s more weirdness where that came from. Satellite images, radar tracking, and old- fashioned air samples show a sky teeming with machines and life. So next time people describe something as “heavenly,” you might ask them if they mean Crowded“crowded.”
Viewed 8031 times by 1662 viewers
- for the
- . This firmware and driver package contains drivers for all of the components in the Surface Pro device, as well as updates to the system firmware that have been released via
- . These drivers and firmware are not compatible with Surface
- Use these drivers and firmware to prepare your custom images for enterprise deployment, or to repair problems with custom installations of
- on your Surface Pro device.
Viewed 59900 times by 4898 viewers
Besides that this site Bink.nu is running on Windows Azure for over 9 months now, I have been testing Windows Azure IaaS since the preview launched last June:
- Install a VM in minutes
- Choose OSes from a Gallery, even Linux
- Upload your own prepped VHD
- Create a load balanced solution
- Connect to your on premise network
- Connect to on premise DNS
- VM mobility
Now with the general availability even more features and options are live:
- New VM Image Templates (including SQL Server, BizTalk Server, and SharePoint images)
- New VM Sizes (including Larger Memory Machines)
- New VM Prices ( reduced prices 21%-33% for IaaS and PaaS VMs)
Viewed 61041 times by 4958 viewers