jmj42

This is also being done. Micro-reactors are generally sub-20MWe and are intended to be portable. The biggest name is micro-reactors is probably Project PELE[1]. PELE is a DoD project to develop a trailer mounted micro-reactors for remote deployment.

PELE will be tested at the Idaho National Lab[2] (DoE's primary nuclear energy research lab). Speaking of INL, they are also building the MARVEL[3] reactor. MARVEL is another test reactor of the micro-reactor type. MARVEL is being funded by DOE-NE (if I recall) and is designed to be be a 100kW.

[1] https://www.cto.mil/pele_eis/ [2] https://gain.inl.gov/GAINEPRINEI_MicroreactorProgramVirtualW... [3] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/new-marvel-project-aims-s...

Having served on a public body "governed" by Robert's Rules, there's one very important aspect of Robert's Rules that the author seems to be overlooking. While the default case certainly does constrain brainstorming, that is not a necessary case. Robert's Rules contains, at the very least, provisions for suspending or altering the rules temporarily for just this sort of reason.

I can't count the number of times the body I served on did just this. Admittedly, this was before COVID and the ensuing discussions were easier to manage in a live, in-person, format, regardless, Robert's Rules does allow for it.

As for public meeting's law, I can only speak for Illinois' Open Meetings Act, but yes, in fact, even email can be considered a meeting in some cases. In Illinois, what constitutes a meeting is a little more limiting. According to the OMA, a meeting occurs when a majority of quorum is present. In the 30 member instance discussed in the article, that's only 8 members (one half quorum plus one); In the case of our 8 member board, that was only 3.

Now, I understand the author's frustration, but these sunshine laws are important in keeping the public's business public, so, as frustrating as it may seem, these should not be relaxed.

Some rando law?

Public performance isn't really some random law pulled out of the aether. It's one of the basic tenets of copyright and serves as the basis for the majority of copyright licensing in the U.S. Even the take-down process that the officer is looking to exploit exists because of the the rights holder's right to public performance (an Instagram video is a public performance).

That it is illegal (criminal) to willfully perform a copyrighted work in public is well established law and not the least bit random.

Public performance of a copyrighted work. Unless the officer has a license to play the music for public consumption, it is illegal for him/her to do so.

TIF is a property tax financing scheme. Abuse or not, its use has very little impact on sales tax.

It seems, perhaps, Resolver One's time has finally come. Alas, Resolver One (and Resolver Systems) died a slow death and ceased to be in 2012. Perhaps this will fare better.

I always thought Resolver was a brilliant idea, but they never gained any traction against the heavy weights (Excel).

Edit- Add link to Resolver One wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolver_One

> doing this stunt in what looks like a suburban park strikes me as shockingly irresponsible.

It look like an R/C air park, actually. I live near the headquarters for two large hobby companies (Hobbico - makers of RealFlight, mentioned elsewhere, and Horizon Hobbies). One of the two (I don't remember which) built a similar air park specifically to provide a location for flying R/C jets.

The R/C club is out flying jets most warm weekend days. See it here: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0591456,-88.5519564,366m/dat...

The same over here. I stayed at a DoubleTree (also a Hilton hotel) in Monrovia CA a few weeks ago. They also had a bottle of water on the desk with a $5 USD price tag.

Ironically, they gave me at least $5 worth of chocolate chip cookies when I checked in.

> but he was the founder in every respect that matters.

Except actually being a founder. He provided money to an existing company, resulting in a controlling stake in that company. Certainly he is important aspect of Tesla as it is today, I'm not disputing that, but being important, perhaps even the single most critical aspect of Tesla today, does not make him a founder. It only makes him important.

Even Musk doesn't claim to have founded Tesla. He's said in the past the he was looking for a company like Tesla to become involved in. That Eberhard's dream (an electric sports car) overlapped Musk's (build affordable electric cars, but start with a high end sports car) is what brought them together.

No it isn't. Musk isn't a co-founder either. He came in on Tesla's A round.

It's funny you should mention graph theory and network security. I'm involved in cyber security research, though more on the operations side of security than networks. However, our research group does do quite a bit of work on the network side. Most of it's focused on SCADA networks, but there's a couple of really cool tools (read startups) that have come out of our group that lean heavily on graph theory.

NP-View[1] maps connections. That is, If HostA can reach HostB, and HostB can reach HostC, is there a path from HostC to HostA.

Veriflow (which I know far less about) is a large topology mapping tool.

[1] http://www.network-perception.com/ [2] http://www.veriflowsystems.com/

Hardware (sometimes free)

http://www.sparc.org/

> We can either cry about it, and whine about how the industry should be more caring and catering to people with thick accents, or they can learn to speak English!

Or, we can work to change the culture that views an accent as detrimental. We do that by talking about it. You (incorrectly) call it whining, I call it keeping awareness up.

Alcohol + late night + gender imbalanced room = you average hack night. That this also resembles your ghetto club is precisely the problem.

From Wikipedia: "The nautical mile is a unit of length that is approximately one minute of arc measured along any meridian."

You have a right to speech. You DO NOT have a right to be heard.

We did (see above). Both of my children (13 and 18) also have a solid grasp on reality and firm bullshit detectors. I suspect belief in Santa, as a child, has little to do with it.

This is also what we did with our kids. In fact, while they no longer believe (they are 13 and 18), we actually still do it.

I've never thought about why we continue to do it, but even gifts exchanged between my wife and myself get labeled "from: santa" in many cases.

This is likely a sun thing. Halt on (SPARC) Solaris does not shutdown the OS. It issues a reset command to the firmware. The halt command on Solaris is roughly equivalent to pressing the reset button on a PC.

When your Sun is particularly hosed we used sync;sync;sync; halt to reset and (hopefully) not lose any data (sync forces OS write buffers to purge)

Sort of. Stop-A drops you into the firmware prompt (OpenBoot), suspending the OS in the process. OpenBoot, of course implements a forth interpreter shell.

Ahh, the good old days... I once implemented a nice little boot device selecting utility in for for some of my Suns. All written in Fourth, and executed by the firmware on every boot.

I'd like to concur. I've been banking with Chase in some form or another since their Bank One merger, and they are easily the best large bank I've been a customer of. They even beat most regional banks I've used.

Their online and mobile tools are a big part of that. Their military support is also pretty good (my daughter is USCG) with true cost free banking and low activity military accounts. In fact, they beat USAA on almost every gauge (the exception being USAA makes pay and allowances available a few days early).

It is still the case. It's called Local Loop Unbundling (LLU). LLU accompanied common carrier deregulation in the late nineties. The rules have changed a bit over the years (favoring ILECs) and at's a little more difficult for a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) to get up and running today than it was in, say, 2000, but the rules are still in place.

LLU has been somewhat successful in increasing competition in larger metro areas, though not so much in smaller rural areas There's still significant start-up cost associated with starting a CLEC, and LLU only gives CLECs access to the CO and local loop infrastructure. As an example, a few years back, I was living in San Jose and my internet/telephone was provided by a CLEC at about 1/2 the cost of the ILEC (verizon) who owned the lines.

I've long thought that LLU applied to cable could provide the same sort of benefit. Since the "local loop" in most cases was subsidized (much like the ILEC situation), then the loss associated with LLU is minimal. It allows for increased competition, without forcing it, and gives the opportunity for increased consumer pressure to (because of additional competition) increase speeds/lower costs.

Autoplay isn't required for these kinds of attacks. I'll confess that I did not watch the actual talk (linked elsewhere), so I don't know if that route was used in this case. I do know, however, that autoplay is not actually required.

Here's a video of a demonstration given back in November of a system (Crossing Guard) being developed at Dartmouth (under the Trustworthy Cyber Infrastructure for the Power Grid). The attack takes advantage of lower level USB operation and does not rely on autoplay.

http://youtu.be/NIlmDpUDudo

[Edit: missing 'not']

We use Duo for various things around here. Love it. It's much more feature complete than Authy (which, unfortunately will not work for any of our use cases).

More importantly, the company is run by well know and respected security researchers (Dug Song and Jon Oberheide).

>People are not going to stop going to MIT.

Well, actually... Let me provide a little insight. My daughter, a future engineer, has dropped MIT from her top choice to off the list. There are many schools that are nearly as good, and despite rankings, better than MIT.

Here's another cool little anecdote: I was in a meeting with director from NIST, along with another researcher and our director. He was in town to give a lecture as part of a regular lecture series we conduct through the school year, and I was meeting with him one-on-one to ask questions about the intersection of IT and power grid operations. He was relaying a story about some engineering project that they had asked MIT researchers for help on.

Suddenly our director burst out laughing. Said he couldn't contain it anymore. He says, "Yeah, we know about that project. We're the people MIT called when they couldn't figure it out."

The moral of the story: MIT is marketing machine. As a rule, they are over-ranked in nearly every category, and rely on a historical perspective rather than a current one.

>what you're referring to is the quality of deal flow of an existing investment firm. There is no shortage of investors already actively involved in funding startups who wish they could have invested in a particular company.

Had they know about it. Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. Sure there's a difference between a startup that is already working the angel and VC networks and a group of guys who want to buy a bar as a hobby, but there isn't much difference between the bar and a bakery who want to expand, or an established bar who wants to open a new location, or the two guys who want to turn recycled junk into interesting furniture. None of these are looking for large investments, and none have access to VC and angel networks. Though the risk is high, there may be investor who are willing to take the gamble.

Lifting the ban provides a channel, where one doesn't currently exist, for these organizations to reach potential investors. Likewise, it provides a channel for interested investors to find out about opportunities they would otherwise not know about.

I didn't imply that lifting the ban would make funding automatic. Nor, do I expect, does anyone actually believe that it would (though you seem to think that's what people are saying). What it does do is allow the two ends to connect when there's mutual interest.

What this does is open a channel of communication. It's a way for small businesses to reach investors. That doesn't imply that the small business is going to get funding (or even a conversation with an investor) any more that getting on Shark Tank implies that Mark Cuban is going to invest in your fancy new shoelace company. On the other hand, there may be an investor out there, somewhere, who just happens to have an aglet company in his portfolio that would make your shoelaces a billion dollar company.

Yes, but my point was, incubators serve as a fine information channel for technology companies, but there is an entire class of small business which are not suited to incubators, such as bars. The rule change gives these small businesses a channel to inform potential investors that they're out there. Investors that they would not, otherwise, be able to reach.

While it's not _necessarily_ true, it is possibly true, and that's the bit that folks are latching on to. They're assuming that there's a "market" of investors who are both interested in and willing to diversify their investment portfolio by, in part, making smaller high risk investments. My experience with, admittedly smaller investment firms, is that this may be true. Organizations like IllinoisVENTURES (I know several of the folks there) aren't interested in big C-round investments. The bulk of their information comes from their proximity (physically and virtually) to Enterprise Works (a UIUC run incubator). I've heard partners declare, on several occasions, "I wish we knew about these guys while they were still looking for seed money." I guess in, at least one, anecdotal case, it does bear out to be true.

As for my bar, let me re-phrase, just for accuracy: We couldn't come close on our own without liquidating existing investments. It didn't make mathematical sense to do so (returns were higher on existing than expected returns on the bar). From our perspective, it was an expensive hobby, not a money making investment (for us).

On the other hand, if we could raise, let's say $50K from investment, $50K converted from other investments (our own money), and $25K from family, then cover the remaining $75K through bank loan collateralized by the building (the building is valued at $125k)... Yup, that would have been easier.

> I think this addresses the challenge of the general solicitation rule (finding the startups) without the negative of creating a bunch of unvetted startups advertising for dollars.

Not really. We, here on HN, tend to frame things around tech startups, but there's a larger world out there that incubators don't (and often can't) address. Consider this (real life) example:

Recently a local pub came up for sale. The asking price was $200,000. The purchase would include all current equipment and supplies, existing vendor contracts (subject to state transferability rules on the alcohol contracts), and local liquor license (the state license isn't transferable). It also included the building which housed 3 occupied (at the time) apartments.

The question, of course, is how to raise the $200K. Standard business loans were out (not an established business). There's SBA, but the loan amount we were looking for was a bit high for SBA. Friends and family, of course, but we wouldn't even come close.

In the end, we had to pass (though funding was only a part of the decision to pass). Here's kicker: If we could have spread the net wider, we may have had a chance to raise the money (with less effort), and been able to go ahead with the purchase.

While this is one story, I see these kinds of things al the time. A few years back, a founder looking to start a paintball facility got nailed by this (he was advertising the investment opportunity). It ended up shutting down the project.

The point is, outside of the technology world, getting investment funding for small businesses is very hard. This rule change makes it much easier.

Not really. AD is krb5 mutual auth backed by an LDAP datastore. LDAP is also used for storing various bits of other metadata. You can (with much pain and sadness) implement a AD-like system using MIT Kerberos5 and OpenLDAP (I've done it)

In fact, even saying that the LDAP portion is extended is a bit misleading. In fact, AD implements a fully compliant LDAP interface. It does lack the more common LDAP Schemas (though they can be installed if you wish), and relies on a schema that MS developed, but the LDAP server is not, itself, extended.

100+ Employees? Well, my current environment is about 500,000 users across 3 campuses, and 4 domains. Throw in federated authentication (shibboleth), custom apps, *nix auth, etc.

With that in mind: It just works!

With any large deployment (100 users isn't large) there are bound to be difficulties. That isn't the exclusive realm of Microsoft. As mentioned elsewhere, have you ever done a large deployment of kerberos? I have. I'll take AD on the infrastructure side any day. "Sideways" AD is a whole lot easier to manage than a sideways MIT Kerberos5 KDC.

Microsoft does have its place. In the enterprise, in the server room, today.