this

| Posted Nov 16th 2007 10:01AM by Filed under: As much as we all like to alter fun of Paris Hilton -- the hard-partying famous-for-nothing air heard du jour -- there's no denying that more often than not she's got great taste in fashion. Most of her clothes are one-of-a-kind vintage finds or made just for her by designers trying to back up their denominate -- so chances are you won't be copying those looks any measure soon. But yesterday she launched (yet another) fragrance and wore an "I heart shoes bags & boys" t-shirt to the event. Lucky for you that t-shirt is. Even luckier. I always figured Paris was so rich she'd never seen any bill smaller than a $50 but I guess occasionally she stoops to our level and buys (somewhat) affordable clothing. Who knew? Please act your comments relevant to this communicate entry. telecommunicate addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. When you register your label and email communicate you'll be sent a cerebrate to confirm your mention and a password. To leave another comment just use that password. To create a live cerebrate simply write the URL (including http://) or telecommunicate address and we ordain alter it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags. All contents copyright &write; 2003-2007. All rights reserved is a member of the. Other Weblogs Inc. Network blogs you might be interested in:

| Posted Nov 16th 2007 10:01AM by Filed under: As much as we all love to make fun of Paris Hilton -- the hard-partying famous-for-nothing air heard du jour -- there's no denying that more often than not she's got great taste in fashion. Most of her clothes are one-of-a-kind vintage finds or made just for her by designers trying to back up their denominate -- so chances are you won't be copying those looks any measure soon. But yesterday she launched (yet another) fragrance and wore an "I heart shoes bags & boys" t-shirt to the event. Lucky for you that t-shirt is. Even luckier. I always figured Paris was so rich she'd never seen any bill smaller than a $50 but I guess occasionally she stoops to our aim and buys (somewhat) affordable clothing. Who knew? Please act your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. When you enter your name and telecommunicate address you'll be sent a cerebrate to confirm your comment and a password. To leave another comment just use that password. To act a be cerebrate simply type the URL (including http://) or telecommunicate address and we will make it a live cerebrate for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags. All contents copyright © 2003-2007. All rights reserved is a member of the. Other Weblogs Inc. Network blogs you might be interested in:

| Posted Nov 16th 2007 10:01AM by Filed under: As much as we all love to make fun of Paris Hilton -- the hard-partying famous-for-nothing air heard du jour -- there's no denying that more often than not she's got great taste in fashion. Most of her clothes are one-of-a-kind vintage finds or made just for her by designers trying to promote their denominate -- so chances are you won't be copying those looks any measure soon. But yesterday she launched (yet another) fragrance and wore an "I heart shoes bags & boys" t-shirt to the event. Lucky for you that t-shirt is. Even luckier. I always figured Paris was so rich she'd never seen any account smaller than a $50 but I guess occasionally she stoops to our aim and buys (somewhat) affordable clothing. Who knew? Please keep your comments relevant to this communicate entry. Email addresses are never displayed but they are required to affirm your comments. When you enter your label and telecommunicate address you'll be sent a cerebrate to affirm your comment and a password. To leave another mention just use that password. To act a be cerebrate simply type the URL (including http://) or email communicate and we will alter it a live cerebrate for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. lie breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags. All contents procure © 2003-2007. All rights reserved is a member of the. Other Weblogs Inc. Network blogs you might be interested in:

BaCa sent in this article about stealing network access that opens. "Sophos has revealed new investigate into the use of other people's Wi-Fi networks to ride onto the internet without payment. The research shows that by using someone else's wireless internet access without permission." Of cover online polls being what they are the results are hardly a plank for a beat investigation but a good share of the answerers did 'fess up to it as well. "find" means to gain entry to instruct or communicate with the logical arithmetical or memory answer resources of a computer computer system or computer communicate. (7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer computer system or computer network. New York's definition is a lot better. Of cover. I can't pull it up alter now because section of the Assembly place with our laws seems to be down but it basically requires that you undergo to bypass a "password or code system" in order to commit the crime of "unauthorized use of a computer". That's actually quite logical. Connecting to an open wi-fi communicate is not a crime in New York State. Bypassing someones WEP key in request to use his wi-fi however is. Connecting to an open wi-fi network is not a crime in New York State. Bypassing someones WEP key in order to use his wi-fi however is. I'd say that pretty much nails it alter on the continue. I feel very strongly that if my dwell sets up an open find point called "netgear" and broadcasting it into my house they're telling me that they don't care if I use it. In fact maybe I don't be every person in my household to undergo unrestricted Internet access. If they're not securing their find point my children could browse unsavory websites and aside from taking their computers away from them. I couldn't do a thing about it. (legally) Now. I am a good dwell and I've made more than one household in my neighborhood aware that they were offering up free bandwidth to anyone who happened by and I've change surface offered up my expertise free of charge to back up them obtain said find point. Now on the other hand if I change a WEP key. I am clearly crossing a black and color lie. Cracking WEP although trivial requires effort on my part. If my neighbor puts up a sign on his front door reading "GOLD INSIDE." and buys a really flimsy lock it's still clearly crossing a lie for me to back up myself to said booty. Some populate might decide to purposefully share their wi-fi. I'd do it if I could easily check the bandwidth of unreckognized guests and guarantee theu were was isolated from my network. Wouldn't it be cool if everyone in the world could donate a little accumulate of their internet pipe to the public? Isn't that what the OLPC is going to do? If they're not securing their access point my children could browse unsavory websites and aside from taking their computers away from them. I couldn't do a thing about it. (legally) I experience this is a stretch and I know some people are averse now new and untested ideas but - you could try *talking* to your children about what they are and aren't allowed to do. Why get your knickers in such a move about "unsavory websites" anyway? If they're old enough to be allowed the responsibility of using the Internet unsupervised they're old enough to make their own decisions about what's suitable and what's not and whether or not it breaks their rules. I guarantee you whatever you call an "unsavory website" your teenagers will already have seen something worse. And laughed at it. The Assembly webpage came back up. It's a little vaguer then I recalled but I still think you are safe: 156.05 Unauthorized use of a computer. A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses causes to be used or accesses a computer computer service or computer network without authorization. Unauthorized use of a computer is a categorise A misdemeanor. 8. "Without authorization" means to use or to find a computer computer service or computer communicate without the permission of the owner or lessor or someone licensed or privileged by the owner or lessor where such person knew that his or her use or access was without permission or after actual notice to such person that such use or access was without permission. create that such person used or accessed a computer computer function or computer communicate through the knowing use of a set of instructions code or computer program that bypasses defrauds or otherwise circumvents a security decide installed or used with the user's authorization on the computer computer service or computer communicate shall be presumptive evidence that such person used or accessed such computer computer service or computer network without authorization. Based on that I would anticipate that you are ok connecting to an change state wi-fi communicate without encryption. There's also this: 156.50 Offenses involving computers; defenses. In any prosecution:1 under section 156.05 or 156.10 of this article it shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he had authorization to use the computer; One could probably alter the argument that an open wi-fi network implies authorization to use the communicate. I disbelieve you could pull this off if you were using the wi-fi communicate to transfer kiddie porn but given that many operating systems will cerebrate automatically to such networks you could probably use it as a defense if all you did was check your e-mail and surf a few webpages. 156.10 Computer trespass. A person is guilty of computer trespass when he or she knowingly uses causes to be used or accesses a computer computer function or computer network without authorization and:1 he or she does so with an intent to commit or attempt to act or further the equip of any felony; or2 he or she thereby knowingly gains find to computer material. Computer breach is a class E felony. So in summary you are PROBABLY safe using an open wi-fi communicate for ligit purposes as it's unlikely that the police or prosecutor would bother charging you with a misdemeanor over using your neighbors connection to analyse your telecommunicate. You definitely aren't safe if the owner asks you to forbid has encryption in displace or if you do something stupid (like try to find his c$ overlap) or illegal. "find" means to gain entry to instruct or communicate with the logical arithmetical or memory function resources of a computer computer system or computer network.(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer computer system or computer network. So every time you want to tour a web place you create verbally a letter or call up the webmaster to ask for permission? If by setting up a Web server I'm tacitly permitting inbound traffic then surely setting up an unprotected wifi access point is the same as far as the law is concerned? (I'm not saying Wifi piggybacking is or should be legal just pointing out that the law you mention as it is is quite vague and change state to interpretation.) Why would putting a server up on port 80 be considered public anymore than putting up a wireless access point? I don't see how having a web server is "implied public". Just because I put it there doesn't convey I be everyone to access it. That's a poor example to use. > Anybody who operates an find inform with it being unsecured is acting foolishly nobody disputes that. You're kidding right?Many businesses (MacDonalds and Starbucks for example) operate open and free.

BaCa sent in this bind about stealing communicate access that opens. "Sophos has revealed new research into the use of other populate's Wi-Fi networks to piggyback onto the internet without payment. The research shows that by using someone else's wireless internet access without permission." Of cover online polls being what they are the results are hardly a plank for a full investigation but a good overlap of the answerers did 'fess up to it as well. "find" means to gain entry to inform or communicate with the logical arithmetical or memory function resources of a computer computer system or computer network. (7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer computer system or computer communicate. New York's definition is a lot better. Of course. I can't displace it up right now because section of the Assembly site with our laws seems to be down but it basically requires that you have to avoid a "password or label system" in order to commit the crime of "unauthorized use of a computer". That's actually quite logical. Connecting to an change state wi-fi communicate is not a crime in New York express. Bypassing someones WEP key in request to use his wi-fi however is. Connecting to an change state wi-fi network is not a crime in New York State. Bypassing someones WEP key in request to use his wi-fi however is. I'd say that pretty much nails it alter on the continue. I conclude very strongly that if my neighbor sets up an open access inform called "netgear" and broadcasting it into my house they're telling me that they don't care if I use it. In fact maybe I don't want every person in my household to have unrestricted Internet access. If they're not securing their access point my children could look for unsavory websites and aside from taking their computers away from them. I couldn't do a thing about it. (legally) Now. I am a good neighbor and I've made more than one household in my neighborhood aware that they were offering up remove bandwidth to anyone who happened by and I've even offered up my expertise free of charge to back up them obtain said access point. Now on the other hand if I change a WEP key. I am clearly crossing a black and white line. Cracking WEP although trivial requires effort on my part. If my dwell puts up a sign on his front door reading "GOLD INSIDE." and buys a really flimsy lock it's comfort clearly crossing a lie for me to back up myself to said booty. Some people might decide to purposefully overlap their wi-fi. I'd do it if I could easily check the bandwidth of unreckognized guests and guarantee theu were was isolated from my network. Wouldn't it be cool if everyone in the world could donate a little chunk of their internet call to the public? Isn't that what the OLPC is going to do? If they're not securing their find inform my children could look for unsavory websites and aside from taking their computers away from them. I couldn't do a thing about it. (legally) I experience this is a stretch and I experience some populate are averse now new and untested ideas but - you could try *talking* to your children about what they are and aren't allowed to do. Why get your knickers in such a twist about "unsavory websites" anyway? If they're old enough to be allowed the responsibility of using the Internet unsupervised they're old enough to alter their own decisions about what's suitable and what's not and whether or not it breaks their rules. I pledge you whatever you call an "unsavory website" your teenagers will already undergo seen something worse. And laughed at it. The Assembly webpage came approve up. It's a little vaguer then I recalled but I still evaluate you are safe: 156.05 Unauthorized use of a computer. A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses causes to be used or accesses a computer computer service or computer network without authorization. Unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor. 8. "Without authorization" means to use or to access a computer computer function or computer network without the permission of the owner or lessor or someone licensed or privileged by the owner or lessor where such person knew that his or her use or access was without permission or after actual sight to such person that such use or find was without permission. Proof that such person used or accessed a computer computer service or computer network through the knowing use of a set of instructions label or computer program that bypasses defrauds or otherwise circumvents a security measure installed or used with the user's authorization on the computer computer service or computer communicate shall be presumptive bear witness that such person used or accessed such computer computer function or computer network without authorization. Based on that I would anticipate that you are ok connecting to an change state wi-fi communicate without encryption. There's also this: 156.50 Offenses involving computers; defenses. In any prosecution:1 under section 156.05 or 156.10 of this article it shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to accept that he had authorization to use the computer; One could probably make the argument that an open wi-fi network implies authorization to use the network. I doubt you could pull this off if you were using the wi-fi communicate to download kiddie porn but given that many operating systems will connect automatically to such networks you could probably use it as a defense if all you did was analyse your e-mail and surf a few webpages. 156.10 Computer trespass. A person is guilty of computer trespass when he or she knowingly uses causes to be used or accesses a computer computer service or computer communicate without authorization and:1 he or she does so with an intent to act or act to commit or advance the equip of any felony; or2 he or she thereby knowingly gains access to computer material. Computer trespass is a class E felony. So in summary you are PROBABLY safe using an open wi-fi network for ligit purposes as it's unlikely that the police or prosecutor would bother charging you with a misdemeanor over using your neighbors connection to check your e-mail. You definitely aren't safe if the owner asks you to stop has encryption in displace or if you do something stupid (desire try to access his c$ share) or illegal. "Access" means to gain entry to instruct or communicate with the logical arithmetical or memory function resources of a computer computer system or computer network.(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer computer system or computer network. So every time you want to tour a web place you write a letter or call up the webmaster to ask for permission? If by setting up a Web server I'm tacitly permitting inbound traffic then surely setting up an unprotected wifi access inform is the same as far as the law is concerned? (I'm not saying Wifi piggybacking is or should be legal just pointing out that the law you mention as it is is quite vague and open to interpretation.) Why would putting a server up on turn 80 be considered public anymore than putting up a wireless access point? I don't see how having a web server is "implied public". Just because I put it there doesn't mean I want everyone to find it. That's a poor example to use. > Anybody who operates an access point with it being unsecured is acting foolishly nobody disputes that. You're kidding alter?Many businesses (MacDonalds and Starbucks for example) operate change state and free.

BaCa sent in this article about stealing communicate access that opens. "Sophos has revealed new investigate into the use of other people's Wi-Fi networks to ride onto the internet without payment. The investigate shows that by using someone else's wireless internet access without permission." Of course online polls being what they are the results are hardly a plank for a full investigation but a good share of the answerers did 'fess up to it as well. "Access" means to obtain entry to instruct or communicate with the logical arithmetical or memory function resources of a computer computer system or computer network. (7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer computer system or computer network. New York's definition is a lot exceed. Of course. I can't displace it up right now because section of the Assembly place with our laws seems to be down but it basically requires that you have to bypass a "password or label system" in request to commit the crime of "unauthorized use of a computer". That's actually quite logical. Connecting to an change state wi-fi communicate is not a crime in New York express. Bypassing someones WEP key in order to use his wi-fi however is. Connecting to an open wi-fi communicate is not a crime in New York State. Bypassing someones WEP key in request to use his wi-fi however is. I'd say that pretty much nails it alter on the continue. I feel very strongly that if my neighbor sets up an open access point called "netgear" and broadcasting it into my house they're telling me that they don't care if I use it. In fact maybe I don't be every person in my household to have unrestricted Internet access. If they're not securing their access inform my children could browse unsavory websites and aside from taking their computers away from them. I couldn't do a thing about it. (legally) Now. I am a good neighbor and I've made more than one household in my neighborhood aware that they were offering up remove bandwidth to anyone who happened by and I've even offered up my expertise free of rush to back up them secure said find point. Now on the other hand if I change a WEP key. I am clearly crossing a black and white line. Cracking WEP although trivial requires effort on my move. If my neighbor puts up a sign on his front door reading "GOLD INSIDE." and buys a really flimsy lock it's comfort clearly crossing a line for me to help myself to said booty. Some populate might decide to purposefully overlap their wi-fi. I'd do it if I could easily limit the bandwidth of unreckognized guests and pledge theu were was isolated from my communicate. Wouldn't it be alter if everyone in the world could donate a little chunk of their internet pipe to the public? Isn't that what the OLPC is going to do? If they're not securing their find point my children could look for unsavory websites and aside from taking their computers away from them. I couldn't do a thing about it. (legally) I experience this is a be and I experience some populate are averse now new and untested ideas but - you could try *talking* to your children about what they are and aren't allowed to do. Why get your knickers in such a move about "unsavory websites" anyway? If they're old enough to be allowed the responsibility of using the Internet unsupervised they're old enough to alter their own decisions about what's suitable and what's not and whether or not it breaks their rules. I pledge you whatever you label an "unsavory website" your teenagers ordain already have seen something worse. And laughed at it. The Assembly webpage came back up. It's a little vaguer then I recalled but I comfort think you are safe: 156.05 Unauthorized use of a computer. A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses causes to be used or accesses a computer computer function or computer network without authorization. Unauthorized use of a computer is a categorise A misdemeanor. 8. "Without authorization" means to use or to access a computer computer function or computer network without the permission of the owner or lessor or someone licensed or privileged by the owner or lessor where such person knew that his or her use or find was without permission or after actual notice to such person that such use or find was without permission. create that such person used or accessed a computer computer function or computer network through the knowing use of a set of instructions code or computer schedule that bypasses defrauds or otherwise circumvents a security decide installed or used with the user's authorization on the computer computer service or computer network shall be presumptive evidence that such person used or accessed such computer computer function or computer network without authorization. Based on that I would assume that you are ok connecting to an open wi-fi network without encryption. There's also this: 156.50 Offenses involving computers; defenses. In any prosecution:1 under divide 156.05 or 156.10 of this article it shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he had authorization to use the computer; One could probably alter the argument that an change state wi-fi network implies authorization to use the communicate. I doubt you could displace this off if you were using the wi-fi network to download kiddie porn but given that many operating systems ordain cerebrate automatically to such networks you could probably use it as a defense if all you did was check your telecommunicate and surf a few webpages. 156.10 Computer trespass. A person is guilty of computer trespass when he or she knowingly uses causes to be used or accesses a computer computer function or computer communicate without authorization and:1 he or she does so with an intent to commit or act to commit or further the commission of any felony; or2 he or she thereby knowingly gains access to computer material. Computer trespass is a categorise E felony. So in summary you are PROBABLY safe using an open wi-fi network for ligit purposes as it's unlikely that the guard or prosecutor would bother charging you with a misdemeanor over using your neighbors connection to analyse your telecommunicate. You definitely aren't safe if the owner asks you to forbid has encryption in place or if you do something stupid (like try to access his c$ share) or illegal. "find" means to gain entry to inform or communicate with the logical arithmetical or memory function resources of a computer computer system or computer communicate.(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer computer system or computer communicate. So every time you want to visit a web site you write a letter or call up the webmaster to ask for permission? If by setting up a Web server I'm tacitly permitting inbound traffic then surely setting up an unprotected wifi find point is the same as far as the law is concerned? (I'm not saying Wifi piggybacking is or should be legal just pointing out that the law you mention as it is is quite vague and change state to interpretation.) Why would putting a server up on turn 80 be considered public anymore than putting up a wireless find point? I don't see how having a web server is "implied public". Just because I put it there doesn't mean I be everyone to access it. That's a poor example to use. > Anybody who operates an access point with it being unsecured is acting foolishly nobody disputes that. You're kidding right?Many businesses (MacDonalds and Starbucks for example) direct open and remove.

Associate Editors:attach Wilson | | Jesus Diaz | Addy Dugdale | More E-Book News this one a prototype from Seiko Epson makers of the. The device's form calculate is at least as change state as Sony's Reader but it has a 1200x1600 display. That's a lot of res on that 6.7-inch screen. modify: Res independence good point brilliant readers. [ via ] * Terminal measures 180x120mm (B6 coat) * Thickness: 3mm * charge: 57g * differentiate ratio: 8:1 * Reflectivity: 43% * Redrawing time: 0.7s * Battery: one CR1220 add cell battery (1'400 screen redraws) A typical laser printer prints at an "eye-ball straining" 1200 DPI. Guess you'd NEVER own one of those. Someone inform the difference between pixels picas and points to this man. True. this WILL alter the text exceed to read. im pretty sure of that. as long as they dont chose to make the text smaller. but I dont see why they should do that anyways. on one align you could save a lot of energy and paper if everyone would use such a device but on the other align i get about 3 mm of waste-advertisments printed on high quality cover every day in my mailbox... ;-( Wow. Mr. Lam's aim of cluelessness might explain why some apps (I'm looking at YOU. Photoshop Elements) think they can get away with ignoring Vista's DPI setting. arrived with PostScript 23 years ago. Yet I comfort get "If you didn't want tiny text why are you buying a 1680×1050 display?" The higher resolution the better. I construe e-books on a 3.5 advance check with 480x640 and text looks a-freaking-mazing at 32 points with anti-aliasing. That should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 220 DPI so near-zero eyestrain regardless of the amount of time spent reading. This is the first dedicated ebook reader that looks even remotely interesting. Finally some resolution on the screen. Guess I'll reserve judgement until some real reviews start showing up. alter anyone?Needs it for any artwork etc. Plus it should be able to construe html lit etc. Basically any change. Until then it is BS. Looks desire it is TOO expensive as well. The other sides of her hands are covered with scratches from holding this thing. How hard would it have been to round over the edges of a device whose sole purpose in life is to be held in human hands. And how about a little rubbery texture to it so it doesn't slip when I'm reading.. errrr.. never object. sharp corners? too expensive? It is a PROTOTYPE.. focus is on the call back measure battery life etc. Seriously we wouldn't consider it unless the case comes in another alter. plate is sooo "Apple 2006." I wonder if there will be a leather adjoin option. Hmmm.. maybe they can move the logo drink just a bit more. Geeez it would look a lot exceed if... As if in response to Amazon's hideous Kindle prototype. Seiko's own e-book reader is skinny and simple sporting a 1200x1600 6.7" e-ink panel. That's fold enough to legibly show a letter-sized PDF. For the record. I have no use for a device like this. I've tried several and I find that I just don't desire reading electronic texts. copulate the trees. authorise copulate all this talk about high resolutions on small screens. We are missing the important thing here. Does that girl not have the biggest hands ever?!?!?!?! I mean I experience they are closer to the camera but be at them. They are freakin' huge!!!

cell-block-9 writes "Today will be change state drink in Manhattan. 'The last snip of Con Ed's direct current system will act place at 10 East 40th Street come the Mid-Manhattan Library. That building like the thousands of other direct current users that undergo been transitioned over the last several years now has a converter installed on the premises that can act alternating electricity from the Con Ed power grid and alter it on premises.' I guess Tesla finally won the argument." Just like most of us here on Slashdot don't know (without the assistance of a examine engine) who won the 1982 Super Bowl. Different things be to different populate and most populate undergo things to worry about rather than wondering who the proponents of power transport via AC were. Most of us here on actually no that means 80+ years ago that was adjust but now a high voltage dc transmission system is in fact more efficient uses less condutors eliminates need for sychnonization between different systems. HVDC also preferred for undersea long distance transmission because of less capacitive losses. DC is comfort far more of a pain to convert than AC at least if you be high efficiancy and high reliability. While HVDC is certainly more efficiant for very long or undersea transmission lines it would be extremely difficult to build a power distribution grid based on it. DC doesn't require high voltages a DC line at a given voltage is slightly more efficiant than an AC line of the same voltage. DC has two main problems1: it is a hurt to voltage convert. Voltage conversion is pretty vital to our modern use of electricity you don't want 11KV in your home but you don't want to be transmitting 240/415 three phase or worse 120/240 change integrity phase any significant distance. You also want much displace voltages for loads of equipment. For equipment cater supplies it isn't so bad they generally don't have particularlly high efficiancies anyway they be to run at fairly low cater and they be to be in a nice indoor environment but building a DC equivilent of a pole pig with similar efficiancy and reliability would get pretty expensive.2: DC is a pain to switch switches and breakers would have to be either much bigger or much more complex for a given DC voltage than for the same AC voltage (the adjust crossings of AC be to break arcs). Do you undergo transmission lines that are three blocks in diameter? Then it's more efficient to convert at the source. What? You don't? Then I guess converting at the point of use is more efficient. Transporting the 5V and 12V levels that most consumer electronics use internally would be insane over more than a few feet because of [wikipedia org]. It would be more efficient to transmit DC if we are talking about the same voltages. AC is impeded by inductance as come up as resistance so in addition to the inefficiencies of converting you also are better off transmitting DC if it is the same voltage. The trick is transmitting at higher voltages is more efficient than transmitting the same power at lower voltage. This is because to send the same cater at low voltage you must send more current and more current means more energy wasted as heat from the resistance of the lie. So voltages from the generator are stepped way up before being transmitted. And the cerebrate AC won out is that it is much much cheaper and easier to step up AC voltage (you just need a transformer which is nothing but a couple coils of equip around an press core) than to step up DC voltages (which requires a boost converter which at its heart is a giant transistor [big enough to survive the voltages and currents of a cater plant in this case] and a huge inductor [big fat turn of wire] along with timing and firing circuits to control the action of the transistor). bring up converters are expensive but over a long enough run of transmission line the advantages of DC over AC do make up the difference (as I recall the break-even point is about a 400 mile desire line). So you do sight some long distance transmission lines that are DC. I know there is one out here in Sylmar. California that runs up to Washington express somewhere. Or that he died broke and alone because people like Edison stole his ideas and robbed him alter. Tesla was a genius and could have done so much more for the world if only things weren't controlled by rich populate with no vision further than how much money they can alter right away off an idea. Tesla's failure is a ameliorate example of capitalism at work. No. Capitalism is the best system available but that doesn't alter it bring together. It is up to the people within the system to try to make it fair. That includes pointing out the problems with it. His criticism isn't meaningless it's important. all you did is enunciate standard real world checks and balances on the ideasno one expects pure capitalism or pure democracy to ever be able to existi'm taking umbrage with radical fundamental departures from the core concepts: communism instead of capitalism for example or theocracy versus democracynot capitalism tweaked or democracy tweakedthe core ideas are always tweaked in one way or another to fit in the real world .. Tesla's failure is a perfect example of capitalism at bring home the bacon. Much of the good ideas that really propel technology are that way. Capitalism rewards manipulative wheeler-dealers far more than creativity. It rewards those who can best exploit creative ideas not make them. In Chicago it's ComEd for Commonwealth Edison. In New York it's Con Ed for Consolidated Edison. I think Massachusetts used to have a ComEd though not sure if that was the same affiliate as in Chicago it stood for Commonwealth Edison (but these days it's called NSTAR in crowd). For short distances and for use within IC it's quite useful. The conversion from AC to DC at displace voltages for use within computers produces quite a bit of heat (hence the fan in your PSU yes I realize that even DC from a higher voltage to DC at a lower voltage produces quite a bit of heat) and so you sight that some data centers are moving to converting from AC to DC outside of the cases and transporting DC directly to the servers. There was an article on As related [wikipedia org] high-voltage DC transmission is more efficient than high voltage AC transmission for a number of reasons and it has other benefits as well in allowing potentially unsynchronized AC systems to transfer power. The main problem is efficient voltage conversion which requires more infrastructure than an AC system with equivalent power assign capability. Actually DC current is more efficient than AC in transmitting power due to there being no reactive component of the power. The main problem with DC is that it cannot be transformed to higher voltages which deliver a lot of energy losses. There is actually a very desire DC transmission line to California that uses DC cater. They convert to AC at the end of the line. AC is also a much safer means for transmitting cater. It is nearly impossible to extinquish a accuse on a DC lie because the voltage never reaches a zero point. Protection devices on AC lines believe upon the zero point to extinquish faults. A few but not very many. The main one is that many cater uses require DC in the end so AC has to be rectified and filtered before it's used -- and in doing so some power is lost. When/where you're using a lot of cater in a relatively restricted area that can alter a meaningful difference. Automobiles for one obvious example mostly use 12V DC systems.