Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Report Super-Powered Battery Breakthrough

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the when-will-they-be-in-my-phone dept.

Power 244

another random user writes with news that researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are reporting a breakthrough in battery technology. They say: "With currently available power sources, users have had to choose between power and energy. For applications that need a lot of power, like broadcasting a radio signal over a long distance, capacitors can release energy very quickly but can only store a small amount. For applications that need a lot of energy, like playing a radio for a long time, fuel cells and batteries can hold a lot of energy but release it or recharge slowly. ... The new microbatteries offer both power and energy, and by tweaking the structure a bit, the researchers can tune them over a wide range on the power-versus-energy scale (abstract). The batteries owe their high performance to their internal three-dimensional microstructure. Batteries have two key components: the anode (minus side) and cathode (plus side). Building on a novel fast-charging cathode design by materials science and engineering professor Paul Braun’s group, King and Pikul developed a matching anode and then developed a new way to integrate the two components at the microscale to make a complete battery with superior performance. With so much power, the batteries could enable sensors or radio signals that broadcast 30 times farther, or devices 30 times smaller. The batteries are rechargeable and can charge 1,000 times faster than competing technologies – imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone in less than a second. In addition to consumer electronics, medical devices, lasers, sensors and other applications could see leaps forward in technology with such power sources available."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot is being abused... apk (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43475783)

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 230 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 230++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcac

Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476069)

That's all fine and dandy, but can you tell us how your REALLY feel?

Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk (-1, Offtopic)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476227)

Where does this scripted brainfart come from anyways?

Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476497)

Jeremiah Cornelius just as he did here [] and made the mistake of posting as his registered user name instead of his hundreds of anonymous coward ones he plastered into every post last month.

Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476569)

Shut up, Paul.

Re:Slashdot is being abused... apk (1)

mikael (484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476795)

Wow! Did he win the slashdot awards for the longest article, and the longest article that was totally impossible to understand?

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476951)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - []


[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - []
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - []


I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - []


When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - []


[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - []


[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - []
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - []


[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - []


In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - []




KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - []


[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - []


[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - []


[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - []


[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - []


Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - []


[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - []


PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)


[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - []


Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - []


[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - []


[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - []


[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - []


[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - []


I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - []


[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - []


Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - []


[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - []


[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - []


[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - []


[to apk] You are the most consistently annoying creature on the internet. There are people worse than you, just like cancer is worse than psoriasis, but you're more like the latter: pervasive, annoying, and always cropping up when one has mostly forgotten about it. You are that indeterminate, continuous itching that slowly erodes someone's mood until they consider cutting off a part of themselves just to stop it for a while. And like psoriasis, you're auto-immune and not fully understood by science. Slashdot continuously makes it worse by scratching that itch over and over again. It's not smart. It just encourages the disease. But everybody's got a limit to their patience. There is no cure for you. But at least, when slashdot dies, you will die with it, and there will be peace. - []




Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)


TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS []
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

In other news... (5, Funny)

Scutter (18425) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475785)

...Magic was discovered today and practical and affordable applications for it are now only 30 years away!

Re:In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476039)

I'm sure i'll get hatred for saying this but...who cares? you just KNOW what this will be ended up used for, if we ever see it at all, and that will be to make "iSliver" phones so God damned thin that a fart can blow the damn thing across the room and of course it'll be that much easier to lose the stupid thing while not giving us one second more run time because "Thin is in daddy-o" even though everybody I know wishes they had better battery life instead of a CC thick phone.

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476109)

I'm sure i'll get hatred for saying this but...

Not hatred, but pity. Pity for you are a fool. The world has great need of decent portable power beyond phones.

Re:In other news... (2)

es330td (964170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476809)

The world has great need of decent portable power beyond phones.

This is true. Unfortunately, TFA says that they have created "microbatteries." While an anecdotal example of jump starting a car with a microbattery is included, lacking any numbers such as kwh of energy we have no idea if these can be scaled "beyond phones."

Re:In other news... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476955)

Great things have small beginnings.

Re:In other news... (2)

Bam_Thwok (2625953) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476151)

If you think you have deeper insights into the preferences of the market that have been missed by all the major phone manufacturers, by all means write a position paper and sell your consulting services. You'll make a pretty penny.

Re:In other news... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476213)

You forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox. Observe.

Re:In other news... (4, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476255)

The thing is that 'magic' (as in your example which is 'Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.') has been discovered with practical and affordable applications so many times in our lifetimes that it isn't an absurd to believe it will happen again.

Re:In other news... (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476429)

The thing is that 'magic' (as in your example which is 'Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.') has been discovered with practical and affordable applications so many times in our lifetimes that it isn't an absurd to believe it will happen again.

Wait. This new battery was written in Perl?

Sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43475799)

I'll believe it when it's in my phone.

Re: Sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43475945)

do you say that about everything?

the article (though i doubt you read it) doesn't claim the technology is ready to be put into products. in fact, it says the opposite: it's still got some problems, but it's a promising breakthrough.

there's no need to be so skeptical and negative about everything.

Re: Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476047)

do you say that about everything?

No, sometimes I believe it when it's in my car, other times I believe it when it's in my fridge (except that stuff that claims to not be butter, I still don't believe that).

Re: Sure (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476231)

Namely "safety issues" ,

seems like forever since we've had to worry about batteries exploding and leaking acid, but batteries are kind of import to us as a race, so some risk in the consumer use of this technology may ultimately benefit us as the technology matures.

Re: Sure (3, Insightful)

michelcolman (1208008) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476519)

Namely "safety issues" ,

seems like forever since we've had to worry about batteries exploding

Tell that to Boeing

Re: Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476283)

We've had a veritable raft of these things in the last few years.

Consistently no change on the availability front, though.

It's a bit tiring.

Re:Sure (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476081)

Homer Simpson predicted this - "First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women."

Re:Sure (2)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476137)

Yes, I'm an idiot. I read super as sugar.

FINALLY!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43475833)

My Google Glasses will now be able to broadcast for decades! :P

That was the most worthless infomercial ever. (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475851)

That was the most worthless infomercial ever.

Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476161)

Agreed. The whole article is full of vague comparison like 30 times farther, 30 times smaller, 1000 times faster etc. The abstract does not even talk about energy density. It only talks about power density. Even that is blatantly exaggerated. Based on the abstract, it translated to max 74 W/cm^3. The article claims, cell phone using batteries few millimeter in size can jump start a car. How is this possible unless the definition of "few" is overstretched and use a cell phone of the size of olden days public phone.

Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476667)

Actually I've jump started my car with a two way radio battery. By just connecting the battery with a couple of wires for 5 minutes I was able to put just enough power back into the car battery to crank the engine and have it start. The lead acid car battery could deliver all of the current at once where my radio battery could not. However, I totally agree. If my cell phone can transmit 30 times farther, I'm guessing that the power will drain from the battery 30 times faster. So ya, does the NEW technology increase the power density?

Infomercial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476205)

Informercial? TFA specifically stated "pushing into an area in the energy storage design space that is not currently available with technologies today.” as opposed to advertising something that it available. As science report goes, this is remarkably adequate.

Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476325)

That was the most worthless infomercial ever.

While the tech. is interesting, the lack of concrete information about it makes it useless, much like some of the hyperboly that has crept up in this place since the GREAT MIGRATION..

Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. (1)

GaratNW (978516) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476811)

Read the abstract instead. You get more in one paragraph that that whole PR fluff piece called an article.

Re:That was the most worthless infomercial ever. (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year and a half ago | (#43477023)

Probably because it's coming from the News Bureau which generates releases for publications with general readership. There's probably something better if you dig into the homepages for the individual researchers and labs. Paul Braun's group [] , which created the electrodes, has some PDF articles. William King's page has a list of publications, but no links or documents.

Software-tuned batteries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43475871)

Sign me up!

(New headline: Hackers can turn your laptop into a bomb!)

Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

Mike_EE_U_of_I (1493783) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475873)

OK, if this actually works out, this is great news. Fast charge and discharge are incredibly useful. Unfortunately, the article does not say anything about storing more energy than existing batteries, which I assume means energy storage is about the same. So, you will be able to recharge your phone very quickly (seconds?), but the phone will still last as long on the batteries as it does now.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475919)

Which if we stop sacrificing everything at the alter of thin is fine.

A GS3 or Iphone5 could be twice the thickness and easily just as portable and easy to use. This would more than double the battery life since the extra volume could essentially be just battery and not radio or mobo.

So you would have a smartphone that lasted 2-5 days and could be charged in minutes.

On the car side, 100 miles is plenty of range if I can charge in 10 minutes. That would give you a nice short break every 2 hours.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (2)

locopuyo (1433631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476005)

As someone who carries his phone in his pocket instead of his purse I disagree.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476051)

I carry my phone in my pocket as well.
Unless you are wearing your girlfriend's jeans you should not have a problem. I have placed phones with extended battery packs into my pockets just fine.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476215)

I carry my phone in my pocket. I have to use a long life battery with my Galaxy Nexus to make it last more than eight hours off charge, which means the stupid thing has a big ugly hunchback cover on the back of it, so the enlarged battery will fit. But while that might be ugly, it's hardly suddenly too thick to fit in my pocket.

Remember we're only talking about thickening a phone by a millimeter or two to get something approaching a reasonable battery life. The current situation is absolutely ridiculous and has nothing to do with practicality or the ability to fit a phone in a pocket. It's purely looks. And it's a prime example of form being put ahead of function to an extreme degree.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (4, Funny)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476457)

I would carry my phone in my pocket but my dongle usually gets in the way.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476485)

As someone who carries his phone in his pocket instead of his purse I disagree.

Sigh. If only I could fit my cell phone [] into my pocket.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (2)

MiniMike (234881) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476863)

Sigh. If only I could fit my cell phone [] into my pocket.

You just need the right size pockets [] .

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476011)

A GS3 or Iphone5 could be twice the thickness and easily just as portable and easy to use. This would more than double the battery life since the extra volume could essentially be just battery and not radio or mobo.

Double the thickness would triple or quadruple the battery capacity.

But don't hold your breath. I expect this to happen around the same time fashion designers stop using walking bags of antlers to model their clothes.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476071)

I was trying to be conservative with my estimates.

Capacity... (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476113)

It's why I opted for the lower performance but much better battery in my RAZR MAXX over the RAZR when they first came out.

Next though, it'll be performance. Holding out to see if it'll be the S4 or if another flagship phone will be worth buying Q3/4 ish...

Re:Capacity... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476351)

If they offered that with stock android or at least an unlocked boot loader I would have considered it.

Re:Capacity... (1)

EdZ (755139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476557)

If they offered that with stock android or at least an unlocked boot loader I would have considered it.

If you're willing to buy it off-contract (and thus unsubsidised) such a thing exists [] , in the US at least.

Re:Capacity... (1)

EdZ (755139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476593)

Whoops, no it's not, got the MAXX and HD mixed up.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

es330td (964170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476837)

I expect this to happen around the same time fashion designers stop using walking bags of antlers to model their clothes.

Can we start a global campaign to have Christina Hendricks model all women's clothing to address this problem?

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (2)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476199)

I've considered several times trying to modify my phone to take a battery twice as large.
If used heavily, my phone usually dies halfway through the evening which means doubling
the capacity would be more than enough. I don't have a problem plugging my phone in every
evening so I really only need 12-16 hours instead of the 8-10 I currently get but ideally I would
want 40 hours (or a second battery) for the rare occasion I forget to plug it in. Either way, my
phone is plenty thin and I would barely notice the extra thickness of a slightly larger battery
which is easily obtainable with existing technologies. Too bad cellphones don't have battery
options like laptops do.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (2)

bjs555 (889176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476345)

You could try this: []
Not exactly portable. It might make sense if you use your phone mostly in your car.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476561)

Amusing. I actually just discovered that there are third parties that make double capacity
batteries and modified battery covers under the name "high-capacity" or more commonly
"extended". For my phone the prices seemed to be only $10-$20 for the new extended battery
and the free case. Not for sure why I never thought to search for this before.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476317)

On the car side, 100 miles is plenty of range if I can charge in 10 minutes. That would give you a nice short break every 2 hours.

No, that would give you a nice short heart-attack every hour, as you rush to find the nearest freeway exist, and nearby charging station, before running completely out of power.

If we had Nascar-like service stations every 20 miles along every stretch of road, highway, freeway, and dirt path, everywhere... THEN 100 mile range would work just-fine. Otherwise, no. 200 is a pretty good minimum, assuming fast charging stations proliferating.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476407)

How fast are you driving? and do you only drive on freeways?

200 is 4 hours assuming not all freeway. Even freeway you would be at 3 hours. Which is a long time to be behind the wheel. If you live out in the west I can see that.

Here on the East coast 100 miles would be fine.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476511)

Here on the East coast 100 miles would be fine

I doubt it. Plenty of folks on the east coast commute, too. I'm sure plenty of them drive close to 100 miles each way... enough to give them severe range anxiety.

And that's just commuting... Start talking about weekend trips, and lots of people go way over that 100 mile trip range, and have to panic to find a station, and curse the extra time.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476527)

100 miles would take you from NYC to Philly with 3 miles to spare. That is long way. 100 mile commutes, each way are pretty rare on the east coast.

Even a weekend trip, that is a decent distance, much longer and you might as well take a plane.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476763)

Welcome to the Midwest.

100 Miles won't get you Minneapolis to Madison, Madison to Chicago, Chicago to Indianapolis, Indianapolis to Detroit, etc etc.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476815)

100 miles would take you from NYC to Philly with 3 miles to spare. That is long way. 100 mile commutes, each way are pretty rare on the east coast.

Even a weekend trip, that is a decent distance, much longer and you might as well take a plane.

Wow, you are soooo out of touch.... that is not a long way... not even close...

I do a 70+ miles round trip commute every day in the North East (Boston area). Unless there is a charge station at work, a 100 mile range just won't cut it. Especially when you start to factor in sitting in traffic due to accidents, storms, reduced range due to below freezing weather, etc. I would feel more comfortable with a 200 mile range, but that is still cutting it close in the winter time (reduced power due to frigid weather).

As for flying, it's not even close to being worth it to fly 100 miles. My thought is that you would have to be very well off or be able to expense the trips if you were to fly every time you had to travel 100 miles. It would take you 2 hours just to start boarding the plane at most airports. If you had driven, you'd be there.

For me, it would barely be worth it to fly the 360 miles that I drive to visit my relatives twice a year (Christmas, Summer). When you factor in cost, time, jet fuel, etc. its cheaper, faster, more comfortable, and healthier (not stuck in a tube with a bunch of people sharing cold germs) for me to drive. This trip takes me from Boston, through Maine, into New Brunswick, Canada. Not exactly a corridor that is likely to get a vast array of charging stations. Anyone traveling outside of a major metro area would run into the same problem.

If ALL of your travel is in a major metro area, then your right, a lower range would work for you. However, it's just not going to work for the rest of us.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476731)

I keep hoping for the battery that will finally allow the electric motor to kill the combustion engine. What little the article says sounds great, but it doesn't speak to a lot of questions, and too soon concludes with trite superlative and celebratory statements. "... breaks the normal paradigms of energy sources." Sure it does-- if such batteries aren't prohibitively expensive to manufacture, can be scaled up to power cars, don't have memory problems, will last for thousands of discharge cycles, aren't prone to catching on fire or blowing up, and also can withstand significant damage without burning or detonating, can handle a wide range of temperatures and altitudes, and are not difficult to recycle or scrap. At least the article covers one essential feature: they recharge quickly.

This kind of reporting is dreadfully common and tiresome. Seems every month brings us another announcement of a fantastic battery or fuel cell breakthrough. Evidently, it's asking too much of journalists to be a little more sober and thoughtful.

Re:Looks like no extra energy in batteries (1)

mlts (1038732) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476873)

I can see these being a step between supercaps and slow charging, but high energy density per volume batteries.

For example, when it comes to solar, you want a charge controller that can get as much energy as possible. Then once the fast charging elements near 100%, start charging slower, but more energy dense batteries. This will help to maximize what comes from the panels for user during the night.

Power Density ? (1)

Punko (784684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475881)

Unless there is a massive increase in power density within a battery, it ain't a super battery, nor is it a breakthrough.

Re:Power Density ? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475937)

If it can charge in seconds it does not need huge power density. If you could charge your phone in 1 minute than it only lasting 24 hours would be fine. If you could charge your car in 10 minutes than only having 100 mile range would be fine.

Re:Power Density ? (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476015)

If it can charge in seconds, then by very definition it has a huge power density. Perhaps you meant energy density?

Re:Power Density ? (1)

Punko (784684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476067)

You are absolutely correct - energy density, not power density.

Re:Power Density ? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476103)

Don't be so dense, h4rr4r is obviously an energetic power-user!

Re:Power Density ? (1)

Punko (784684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476025)

Power density is key. Yes, a reduction in charge time is great, but spending 10 mins charging for each hour of driving would NOT be desirable.

Unless I get at least 30:1 run time vs charge time for an electric vehicle with a 3 hour minimum run time, I'm not sold. As for the phone battery, 1 minute for 24 hours that's a 1400:1 ratio (run time vs charge time) If I could get that for a car, we'd drop gasoline in a heartbeat.

The Fine Print (5, Informative)

Darth Cider (320236) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475891)

From the supplemental material: "The energy densities of the microbatteries are initially superior to the supercapcitors, but lose an average 5% total energy density after each cycle."

Re:The Fine Print (2)

Isca (550291) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475957)

I wish I had moderator points today. This is the key. Imagine of the battery only lasted half as long after only 30 days. NO THANK YOU!

Re:The Fine Print (3, Funny)

Isca (550291) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475979)

Now I just need to imagine that I know how to use proper grammar with logical, concise sentences.

Re:The Fine Print (1)

Spinlock_1977 (777598) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476123)

... WITHIN logical...

would be more concise :-)

Re:The Fine Print (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476145)

Apart from changing 'of' to 'if', I couldn't find much fault. It's pretty clear in its meaning, and I think that should take precedence over longer, more 'eloquent', yet ultimately more verbose sentences. (*Maybe* change 'lasted' to 'lasts' come to think of it...)

Re:The Fine Print (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476285)

Typos happen...

Imagine of the battery -> Imagine if the battery

Not a big deal.

Re:The Fine Print (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476341)

Your grammar isn't too bad; it's your typing that is at fault. You just need to learn how to use the preview.

Re:The Fine Print (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476111)

A battery that is about the size of a sim card that lasts about a year? After all, you only have to recharge it once for the first 6 weeks. At least for me, I can do 36 hours on a single charge with my current phone with no problem. Cut off about 1.5 days after each charge. It'd be a lot of cycles until the battery lasts less than 24 hours. It's not a great technology but it is interesting.

Re:The Fine Print (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476163)

Imagine if a professor's research group didn't produce a finished commercial product, but was just working on new technologies. This may not be the final tech that you want, but it may very well be a key step in getting to it.

I see where this is going... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476175)

Marketing: "Phone batteries that fully re-charge in a minute!"
Reality: Monthly $50 battery replacement

Re:The Fine Print (1)

Spaham (634471) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476669)

So it will NEVER be really out, since you *only* lose 5% each time, there's always 95% left !!!!

Re:The Fine Print (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476959)

Hey Spaham, there's a visitor for you out in the hall --- says his name is Zeno. You might need to go out and help him --- he seems to be having some trouble making it to the door.

Cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43475897)

Electric cars breaktrough,

Now Musk can build his electric plane :)

It'll be great until... (1)

cgiannelli (2740647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475947)

Another company buys and buries this tech. Or it'll be released in 10 years. It would be a fantastic battery to put into Electric cars, which is another technology we're far overdue for and have the ability to make right now.

Re:It'll be great until... (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476299)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the crackpot breakthroughs get ignored in the business realm and die off, while the really game-changing ones get scooped up by Duracell and Big Oil and friends before they can ever be patented...and die off.

Motorola back in the game! (1)

srussia (884021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43475977)

Behold the Motorola TAZR!

Re:Motorola back in the game! (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476131)

and the TAZR MAXX

Is that the last one we need? (0)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476033)

By all your battery breakthroughs combined... I am Captain Perpetual Motion!!!

Perhaps I'm missing something but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476075)

...this new battery has a superior energy density than a supercapacitor, but lithium ion batteries generally have in the region of 100x the energy density of a supercapacitor ( so this doesn't sound too revolutionary to me. Energy density is surely the important factor for most personal electronic equipment, rather than power density.

missing clause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476095)

1000 times faster than the worst amongst the competing technologies.

That 3rd image on the abstract link shows a much better summary. At best it claims to be better than current lithium ion batteries by a factor of 10 in power density, but lithium ion batteries are still able to beat it in energy density.

"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone..." (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476101)

imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone in less than a second

I'd like to, but my fuses just blew, the connector in the phone melted down, there's a smell of burning plastic insulation in my room, and a small fire seems to have started burning here, so I have other things on my mind!

Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... (3, Funny)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476171)

The phone is credit-card thin, but the power connectors equal those on a car battery.

Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... (2)

TankSpanker04 (1266400) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476319)

Apple's Lightning II connector coming soon...

Re:"imagine juicing up a credit-card-thin phone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476365)

While the tech. is interesting, the lack of concrete information about it makes it useless, much like some of the hyperboly that has crept up in this place since the GREAT MIGRATION..Now based on the above comment about fuses blown, could also be dangerous.. Thanks /.

the key is reaction surface area (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476125)

Previous attempts to increase reaction surface area have included alternatining disks, folded sheets, porous poweders, nanotubes ... But the tiny networked cubes shown in the diagram looks like it could be a winner.

Interesting, but.... (2)

d0n0v6n (2899117) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476139) we ignore the first law of thermodynamics? If these batteries charge 1,000 times faster then they must put off 1,000 times the heat or so one would think under the law. Further, the largest collection of Lithium is sea water, but it is very inefficient to harvest existing at the ppm level.

Somewhere... (4, Interesting)

LordStormes (1749242) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476269)

... Elon Musk has one hell of a rager over this. This could make electric cars that could go from Florida to New York on one charge, and recharge in similar time to a gas refill, a possibility.

Say you got 500 miles to a charge, which is a reasonable amount if these numbers are to be believed. That's the amount of miles driven by the average US driver in 2 weeks. So if the battery needs to be replaced after 8-10 charges, you're talking once a quarter. If the battery costs $250 and is easily user-replaceable, this isn't a big deal:

My quick, rough math says that if it lost 5% of the original maximum after every charge and the maximum charge of a brand new battery were 500 miles, 10 charges would come out to 3875 miles. If the battery can be produced for $250, that comes out to 15.5 miles to every $1 spent on the battery. Now, consider experiments are in progress to allow free/nearly free recharges, so the cost would really be reduced to just the battery. The current gas price I see out my window is $3.33/gal and my Scion xB gets about 30 MPG.

So, my Scion costs $3.33 to go 30 miles. The Tesla with a $250 battery would cost $2, and not explode the environment.

I'm sold. // of course these costs are pure conjecture until we know more.

Anode versus Cathode (0)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476293)

In my country the Anode is the plus side of the battery ...

One step closer to Shipstones (1)

DrTung (612687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476353)

In Friday by Heinlein they have these batteries called Shipstones :-)

In other news (0)

dainbug (678555) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476369)

Oil Companies pay researchers to shut their mouths and sell them, their new discovery, where it will be hidden and never see the light of day.

Don't you worry, never fear, robin hood will soon (1)

tekrat (242117) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476411)

"Don't you worry, never fear, robin hood will soon be here!"
"Well, where is he?"

Every damn week, there's another article here on Slashdot about some revolutionary energy tech, and every week it gets forgotten about, and in the meantime we can't even get our country to agree to build a pebble bed reactor to make electricity from all the nuclear waste we're currently throwing into the ocean.

I'll believe this advancement (like the super efficient or the super cheap solar cells), when it's available to the consumer. Because if it's that revolutionary, someone will want to get rich off it. But right now, I still can't afford to cover my roof with solar cells.

You know what? (2)

Dripdry (1062282) | about a year and a half ago | (#43476415)

All I want on the side of my battery not is a logo that says, "King/Pikul" Start a jam band, name it King Pickle, profit.

Not so fast. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476529)

If you look at the supplemental material it becomes obvious this only gives an unfavorable tradeoff.
The configurations that give high power give lousy power density. Assuming using the same volume of batteries as modern cars you would wind up with a car that can go either 30Mi on a 10 minute full charge or a car that can go 100Mi on a 40 minute full charge.
This is not a good deal compared to modern tech that gets you 280 Mi on a 70 minute charge.
And that isn't even taking into account the 5% per cycle capacity degradation.

anode vs cathode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476741)

Slashdot: News for fuckwits who don't the difference between an anode and a cathode.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>