That achievement that you're referring to was ... distorted.

Not by Foone -- the person who did it -- but by the media reporting on it, and the distortions took on a life of their own.

Foone did not port Doom to a pregnancy test. Instead, he ripped all the guts out of a pregnancy test, put in a replacement screen, and it displayed Doom running on an external computer. Details here.

It's still neat, but not quite what the media has been claiming.

Windows 11 has two main requirements that Windows 10 doesn't that will send a lot of computers to the landfill :

1. the TPM requirement
2. the "modern CPU requirement" -- Intel, AMD -- if your CPU isn't on the list, it doesn't work. (Without the hacks, of course.)

All that said, of the many computers I've evaluated for "will they run Windows 11", while it's the TPM requirement that gets the most press, it's the CPU requirement that nixes most of the computers that I've looked at that get nixed -- a lot of older computers do have the needed TPM module, but have an older CPU.

Personally, I wish Microsoft would back off on both requirements, but the CPU requirement is the worse one -- a lot of the computers that no longer qualify are still perfectly usable computers with good performance.

That said, I can understand why the FSF would be more up in arms about the TPM -- they don't like black boxes of any sort.

But there's going to be a *lot* of perfectly good computers thrown in the landfill in about a year ... I'm not a fan.

Copyrights would generally be owned by the person who took the picture of his likeness, not Mangione himself, unless 1) it was a selfie, or 2) Mangione paid somebody to take pictures of him and it was part of the contract that he'd own the copyrights.

That said, Mangione would indeed have rights to his own likeness, especially if his likeness is used for commercial reasons -- copyright law is not the only thing involved here.

Further complicating things, some states have laws against profiting from your own crimes -- "Son of Sam laws", though I don't know if NY has one, and like the article says, they aren't always enforceable, and it's generally not Mangione that is making money from his likeness right now anyways.

Ultimately, it's complicated. But certainly, UHC has no rights to any of this, and they would have no business sending DMCA requests related to pictures of Mangione unless they took the pictures themselves (which seems unlikely.)

I recall hearing a 911 call where they'd called in that one crashed, and then ten others immediately showed up or something like that.

And yet ... nothing else about it? Was it a hoax? Were they mistaken? Did the aliens/government take their craft before we could find it?

Is that the one? Or was it something else?

Because if Venus or a 737 crashed, *it wouldn't be so easy to cover up*.

Semi-annual?

Personally, anything less than daily and I get nervous.

Well, even Windows puts user files under C:\Users\{username}.

But when you reformat, everything under C: is lost. You could set up things to have the OS in C: and user files in D: so user files can be saved in a reformat, but then you have to worry about the size of each partition and make sure it's appropriate.

That said, when installing apps Windows certainly does put stuff *everywhere*.

All that said, I'm a bit surprised that they care so much about ChromeOS being able to reset without losing data -- I mean, the important stuff is stored by Google as a part of your account anyways. "Safety reset preserves local data and apps, as well as things like bookmarks and saved passwords" -- well, local data tends to mostly be caches, and the rest of what's mentioned is stored in one's Google account.

The big exception I see would be Android apps if they're being used (is this a commonly used feature?), and most of them will have their own cloud storage setups when needed.

Still, the less that needs downloading, the faster the device is back up and working. Bookmarks and passwords would re-download in a second, but apps could take minutes or an hour on a slow connection.

Altair sells a bunch of software aimed right at nerds -- that's only one of many. But it's a big one!

Very, very best case, under *ideal* conditions.

In the real world, motors are a lot less efficient. 50-80% figures are pretty typical in real-world conditions such as powering a hub motor e-bike or car with the motor driving the wheel without a variable transmission, so the motor has to work under a large range of speeds.

You can improve this quite a bit by adding a variable gearbox or having an application where the speeds aren't so variable (and so you can adjust the gearing/motor to match what you need exactly), but even then 90% is really, really good.

That said, I have no idea how an electro*static* motor would fair against our current electro*magnetic* motors under such varying conditions. I'm inclined to guess that they're comparing electrostatic motors under ideal conditions to electromagnetic motors under real-world conditions, but I don't actually know.

Google can happily track your location via visible WiFi access points and cell phone towers too, you know.

This won't help the airplane pilots too much, but at least google is covered!

OK, but I'm not the guy you need to convince.

At this point, the path forward is pretty simple: all you need to do is convince the base commanders involved that your tactical and legal analysis of the situation is superior to theirs, so they'll know how better to proceed next time.

Even the /. summary explains why not :

But if they change the law, then sure. But until then, they have to follow the law.

I could certainly send a single packet to every IPv4 address in a short amount of time. I don't know how fast you are requiring for "that fast", but with a typical gigabit home internet connection I imagine I could do it in under a few hours, and with more hosts I could do it that much quicker.

But there's not even a need to hit the entire IPv4 address space -- tools like Shodan can tell you which hosts have it open, so with that you could do it to every host with that open in seconds.

Note that this vulnerability isn't in printers -- it's in systems running the cups-browsed service. You may even be running this (without realizing it) when you don't have any printers at all, though when I read up on the vulnerability it was triggered by you actually printing to the "fake" printer -- though Akamai seems to be referring to something related but also different.

Printers themselves are notoriously insecure. Nevermind the way that you can spit text at 9100/tcp and it spits out paper (so just printing garbage costs you actual money), but this interface often has configuration options that can be used to brick the device, sometimes print jobs are saved and can be retrieved, and often there's an interpreter (like postscript) where you can run code, and you may be able to use the device as a jump host to the local network. And of course it all suffers from the usual "embedded device syndrome" where it's often never updated, *ever*, no matter how many security holes it has.

But even without any printers, you may still be running into this issue. If you build a new Linux box to run some app and don't properly harden it before putting it on the internet, it may expose services like this that aren't needed.

Tropospheric ducting can have broadcast FM (VHF) picked up at thousands of miles, and heavy sunspot activity can cause it to experience skip, but both things are really rare. Other than that, it's pretty much line of sight. (That said, the antennas are quite tall, and putting antennas on top of mountains is popular, so "line of sight" can be a pretty long distance.)

But broadcast AM at 0.5 to 1.5 MHz? During the day it's pretty much line of sight like broadcast FM, but at night it starts skipping and can be picked up a lot further almost every night.

In any event, these things that cause enhanced range are generally considered *bad* rather than good for broadcast AM and FM -- after all, they can cause stations to interfere with other stations hundreds of miles away when there is normally no interference.

No, you're the one who has it wrong.

Lower frequencies are better able to go around obstacles (though FM broadcast radio is a low enough frequency to work in most cases -- WiFi and cell phones in the gigahertz range are more likely to have problems with obstacles) and also can be subject to "skip" -- and AM broadcast uses 0.5 to 1.5 MHz, where FM broadcast uses around 100 MHz.

VHF signals may enjoy tropospheric ducting and even some types of skip, but it's pretty rare -- but under 30 MHz, skip becomes relatively reliable, working almost every night. (But some nights are better than others, of course.)

Um, what? Ham radio operators have used "skip" to talk on the ham bands under 30 MHz all the way across the world with just a few watts of power.

But broadcast AM and FM use lots more power -- in the US, AM broadcast stations max out at around 50 kW, where FM broadcast stations max out at 100 kW. A 100 kW FM station will get about 100 miles of range (line of sight from their elevated antenna) and adding even more power won't really get it more range, though if conditions are just right for the tropospheric ducting I mentioned earlier that can lead to increased range, whereas a 50 kW AM station will work out to about the same 100 miles for the same reasons, but at night can fairly reliably go hundreds or thousands of miles thanks to "skip".

Shortwave stations are typically meant to be heard worldwide, and they generally use 3 - 30 MHz -- frequencies where "skip" works really well. They tend to use more power than the typical AM station -- up to 500 kW or maybe one million watts to allow people to pick them up worldwide without big, elaborate antennas.