There seems to be a spate of "wow, I found this (really old) technology called piezoelectricty, and it will SAVE TEH WORLD" announcements lately.
Piezoelectricity is cool, but not terribly useful for useful electrical power generation. It is far more useful as a sensor mechanism. Want to know how much flex your (building, ship, car frame,etc.) structure is undergoing? Use a piezoelectrical coating to determine that. How about "Hull Integrity"? Cells of this type of coating on the surface of a ship or aircraft, or even a pipeline could be used for determining how much breach has occurred and where. Other similar uses are easily envisioned.
But these recent "power for nothing" articles are getting old. Some of them almost have a Rube Goldberg feel to them.
Unfortunately for your proposal, many sites can not be stuffed into.kids but are "kid safe" while also being not "kid safe".
The main issues with your proposal is that only parents can truly decide what is "kid safe". For example, my 4 year old might not need to access wikipedia, but my 9 year old will.
"Kid safe" is mostly shorthand for "let me use the Internet as a babysitter and blame someone else when my kids inevitably find something I would have objected to had I been paying attention to my children".
And before someone starts going off on how hard it is, know this: I have three children and put in more than 12 hours a day of working. My wife and I also home school our children. We still manage to monitor what our children do, and even better educate them on why. It is known as being a parent. If you "don't have the time" to pay attention to your kids, you should rearrange your priorities. Otherwise porn is the least of your worries to come.
Of course not, we support far too many European economies for that. You love having our troops sitting around in Europe serving as your primary defense arm while not paying for it.
Further, the U.S. becoming isolationist wold require the U.S. getting out of the U.N.. That would utterly remove what little power that body currently has. Do yourself a favor. Download the data on what country makes up most of the "peace keeping forces", especially in the early highly-dangerous phases of "peacekeeping operations". Now remove the American contingent and redeploy. Yup, not going to be much peacekeeping deployments. Especially when countries realize they don't have the US troops back home in case something (like, say Russia more-than-getting pissy; and who knows what Russia would do with the US out of NATO) were to happen.
Further, when U.S. resources are no longer ensuring the free flow of oil, you'll have to do it on your own. With what forces? The ones you've deployed to UN military efforts? Why would we not be doing it? True isolationism would require complete elimination of foreign oil dependence. The U.S. can do it when it wants to, it just hasn't wanted to. Yet. It would take us a bit under a decade, or faster if we *really* wanted to push it hard.
If the U.S. went into isolationist mode, we could pull it off over the course of 10 years. In the process, the European economy would sink even further into the crapper, as would the Chinese and Japanese economies. Israel would probably beat the crap out of it's belligerent neighbors (who would get more belligerent if they knew the US was not getting involved), the UN would go belly up as would much of the international oil cartels as they lose their influence and USD cash cow.
On that note, China would make a massive change when the US pulled off the oil break because now they are the sitting ducks. Further, they would definitely launch against China and several of the countries it claims as it's own, knowing the US was going to stay out of it. They might even make a push for the oil fields. GPS? Oh, sorry, US only now, thank you. We won't even begin to contemplate what an isolationist US would do regarding the Internet.
A truly isolationist superpower is similar to a div-by-zero situation for the current state of global politics. The entire system is still based on the "natural superpower evolution" scenario. Yet none of those scenarios account for one (or the surviving) of the superpowers going isolationist.
And of course, an isolationist America would not be allowing foreign students in her universities. That would certainly impact the world. Good or bad is hard to say. Probably bad but by a slim margin.
To put it simply, you want our resources while not wanting anything else. Which is exactly what you accuse us of doing. So no, of course you aren't asking us to be isolationists. That would cost you too much and your world would be upside down and spinning.
Of course, America would be overall the better for it. Not that I'm saying we be isolationists. However, removing oil dependence (not talking just cars here people: full energy independence), pulling our troops out of Europe et al., folding the Air Force into the Navy and expanding it (net expansion since duplication would be eliminated) while decreasing standing Army troop strength, going full-bore into space exploration, and not poking our noses in anybody's business (oh, Putin wants to take Poland? That's a European problem let them handle it, they don't need us) to include our own citizens' would be a good thing.
We'd still trade of course, but participation in NATO, NAFTA, GATT, WorldBank, UN, etc. would all go bye-bye. Foreign aid? Pft. it' gone too. After all, that's putting our beliefs into other countries, and poking our nose into other countries' business. Germany can't support it's welfare programs and a military to protect their land, foreign campaigns, and oil protection? Oh well. Let them figure i
The fact is that the US seems to be quite trigger happy and forget what diplomacy is.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" while looking or reaching for a big stick. For example, China wanting the US to not be able to develop defenses against their anti-satellite weaponry.
be sure to expect the Comcasts of the world to mark that traffic as the lowest priority possible, thus taking forever to actually get to those sites to log a complaint.
A manned space station is generally not practical, yes. However for some things they are eminently practical. That is a very small subset, however.
As far as weapons, as pointed out below, the Russians have stuff with weapons (or at least did), so having similar is not far fetched. Second, China is carrying out satellite attack programs. Not every battle (indeed very few) are ever like the movies, so referencing James Bond is rather out of point range.
And finally, in space a pellet gun can be long-range with the right targeting system. In space you shoot a simple gun and that projectile will continue on until it hits something - even if that something is the atmosphere and it will hit it with all the force it had when it left your barrel. A small 9mm automatic with a strong targeting system could disable or destroy a satellite many miles away. Indeed "small arms fire" (as opposed to 23mm guns which are NOT small arms) in a cloud may actually be a very effective covert attack. Pick off certain pieces such as dishes or power panels. Do it right and it would look like ordinary debris damage.
As far as out of contact, that isn't the point. It's cheaper and better to have a defense system to stop the ASAT missile or ASAT-Sat headed toward you then it is to just let it get taken out and know about it.
We will see much more of this in the future as multi-core and multi-processor systems become more common. This trend is driven not by porn though, but by that other big driving force behind the computer industry, bloated operating systems and office programs.
"Fox News is seeking a new bogeyman now that the cold war is over"
Am I the only dude from reality who has noticed a slow rise in anti-real-events stuff from EU people? Do other EU sources have this anti-US slant? Because looking at it from the outside, it's like the EU is seeking a new distraction from their own problems now that they've all kissed and made up.
Now on to a more serious side. Fox News is not the root of all evil any more than the BBC or CNN is.
Why is it "anti-China" to report that Chinese spies got caught?
Why is it anti-China to prepare for what China has stated they are planning to do?
See, some of us have studied China - specifically the Chinese government. We've read their documents. We've seen that they claim a lot more than just Taiwan. They claim entire other countries as part of their soveriegn rule and parts of other large ones (IIRC out through India and Pakistan for example).
Ok, so what, they make claims. What's the big deal? The big deal is that they intend to reclaim them. They are building their military assets. "So what, they say it's for defensive purposes." you say. Read the details. They are building their military to "reunify" their soveriegn lands.
That means that the Chinese government is looking to expand by force. They know that if they start invading countries, the UN will get involved, and that means the US (which might have to get involved anyway). The Chinese government has specifically stated they are preparing to be able to take on the US. Given their stated goals, that's not suprising.
But you don't hear about this in the media because the media is enamored with China. All that money, you see. Plus, many people think they'd like to see China as a new superpower to take on the remaining superpower. But they don't know/understand the history of China, or it's current policies, beliefs, and stated goals. Just as media pundits don't.
Note that I'm not advocating starting something. However, to be idealistically unprepared is folly, stupidity even. It would be like running an unpatched Windows install with no malware protection, no firewall, etc. on the open Internet because nobody has said they want YOUR computer specifically, just everyone else's.
It is possible that in time, they may change. However, given their history, it's not likely and if it does happen it likely won't be for a few more generations.
So your photographer gets laser surgery and due to the differences in the outer part of the eye the signature is different and now they don't match their old photos? Yes, LASIK (for example) doesn't affect normal iris scans because those use IR to scan the iris itself. But this apparently takes a picture of the eye. And yes a picture can be affected by eye surgery.
I agree generally with what you said and certain;y the spirit behind it. However:
Certainly the difficulty which private aerospace has had recently in trying to duplicate, essentially, the circa 1965 Saturn 1B medium-lift launch vehicle should make one pause thoughtfully before concluding that it's just a piece of cake to design a combination heavy-lift vehicle and re-usable manned spaceplane seating 10 that leaves the SS in the dust. I mean, if it were easy to do better -- wouldn't someone have done so, already? It's not like there isn't a fortune to be made by the first organization that can get 50 tons of cargo and a crew of 10 to LEO for 10% of the price of a SS launch.
That's not quite true. It isn't so much about the engineering but the design choices, demand, and non-technical costs. Where do yo launch from? Who wants a Saturn 1b when we have Deltas? The Delta IV puts more mass to LEO than the Sat1b did. The only failure was a partial failure of a Delta IV-Heavy. Saturn 1b had 9 launches. Yes all were successes. The Delta IV (non-heavy) has had six out of six successful launches. And it can put MORE into orbit than the Sat1b. One can not honestly say that we haven't been able to replicate the Sat1b's capability.
As far as a spaceplane, I think that's a fundamentally flawed idea and know that many aerospace engineers agree. The shuttle is essentially "a bad design engineered to perfection". As long as we are using reaction-mass rockets, a straight-up stack is the way to go (i.e. Sat V).
The regulations and insurance costs are a very big driver in startups. This is in part due to the high cost of launches. High cost means you don't want to spend 100M bucks to put a $150,000 satellite in orbit. Do you have any idea what it takes to insure a 60M dollar satellite (and the "loss of use" damages)? Land space is pretty limited in inhabited parts of the world (if your rocket fails it comes down over NY? No, you aren't going to be launching. Period.).
That isn't to say the engineering part is a breeze, just not the deciding factor.
Some of it is chicken and egg. How can you get funding (private/public/whatever) to build a launch system if you don't have a market? Sorry but launching a dozen people to space for a joyride isn't profitable and probably won't be for a very long time.
Perception is the root of all space travel stagnation.
Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are.
Yeah because man they've got some seriously advanced space technology. I hear they have long range rockets too. We'd better steal us some of that if we want to keep up!
Oh wait, they got it from us.
But yes, China and Russia both are still "enemies". We need to remember that. Note I didn't say "The Chinese and Russians". Nor did I advocate "regime change" just now either.
Maybe they found it to hard to steal Russia's shuttle info?
Laws are not intended to be things you "pass on a whim". Therefore there is no danger in letting laws take a while to get reviewed and passed. Most of the greatest injustices and statist/fascist deeds were done in rapid-action bill passage.
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I'll take Ms. RightLaw tomorrow over Ms. RightNowLaw tonight because Ms. RightNowLaw has VD, man. The kind that never goes away.
Nowhere in the constitution does it provide a "right" to privacy, but not only was such a right "interpreted" to exist when no such right existed before, it brought with it the "right" to an abortion with strong arguments that this right is absolute (no exceptions).
The US Constitution was never intended to be a list of rights. It was to be a limitation on government, not we the people. Does the constitution say it lists all the rights you have? No. Does it say the government has the power to invade your privacy and take it away on a whim? No. Thus, do you have a right to privacy? Absolutely.
The constitution does not, and was never intended to, grant people rights. Only to limit government powers. How can we know this? We can read the debates from the time. Those who objected to what later became the "Bill of Rights" objected to them based on the knowledge that you can not list all of them and to list some of them implies you've defined them.
It isn't a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reading and understanding.
A fundamental flaw, Jane, in your analogies exist, but I won't tell you about them.
Ok, seriously though, it is there. There is one and only one party that can actually fix the problem: Real. Surely this company doesn't have legal access to the source and legal authority to "fix it" and ship it out, right?
Seems virtually everybody commenting here missed that bit. According to the article, this group/company refused to let Real have the information only "other paying customers". None of your analogies apply. I'm sure Real could, if they wanted to, easily afford to be a paying customer.
Here is one that does: I know there is a flaw in your car's alarm. I'm not going to tell you what it is, period. But I will sell the information to the local car thieves. For a fee.
Now, that isn't blackmail either. Blackmail would be me trying to get you to do something (other than pay me money since that would be extortion) or I will release the information to people you don't want to have it.
Is it wrong? Absolutely. Is it illegal? Maybe:
"It has probably been latent for many months. Real's customers were vulnerable as soon as they downloaded this version of RealPlayer. There is currently knowledge circulating in criminal circles and attackers are using it to compromise Real's customers."
It's called being accomplice. In some jurisdictions, knowing something illegal is going on, having an ability to do something about it, and choosing not to is a crime. It may even be able to be called suborning(?) illegal activity.
If this was about a vulnerability is voting machines, would you maintain your position? If I knew a way to make a voting machine do what I wanted, say tally up more votes for a candidate of my choice, I could get very rich selling that information to the right people. Even if I sold it to libertarians, I'd still be in the wrong (but sorely tempted!).
Capitalism never trumps basic morality. That's not capitalism that's greed. Calling it, or accepting it as, a "common business model" is wussing out. "Everybody does it" is not just for people who want to justify doing it, it is much more useful to those who don't want to feel any responsibility to do something about a wrong or have to admit something is wrong. To do so when that comparison is faulty is just plain messed up.
Me, I don't use or like Real. But it's still wrong.
In politics, public campaign financing lets all viable candidates compete on equal footing with no ulterior motives.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Seriously, mod this guy up as Funny.
Big hole in theory #1 "Who determines who is viable?"
Big Hole in theory #2: In order for your notion to (pretend to) work you have to ban private money being used. All of it.
Those who have the gold (can make the laws) will decide who can be considered "viable" in your proposed system. It's bad enough now, it'd only get worse. At least now if the government or powers-that-be don't think you (or want you to be) viable you can still go prove them wrong by getting your own funding.
By banning private funding you just cut off millions of people's free speech. That's your nose lying on the floor as you laugh at your face.
There is one and only one solution to the "problem" of campaign contributions:
1: Reduce the demand. Politics follows supply and demand laws like virtually everything else. If the legislators have less power there will be less demand for them. The more power a legislator can have the higher the price will be.
2: Remove all limits that natural people have on contributions and ban *any* corporation or other government created/sanctioned entity from having any. Let PEOPLE decide.
3: Realize that just because person A gives money to candidate A doesn't mean candidate A is bound in any way to follow what Person A wants. Most people/groups contribute to people that *already* are going to or are more likely to vote the way they want them to.
The vast amounts of money going to elections is a symptom, not the cause. Fix the cause (excessive power among legislators), everything else is a finger bandage on a sucking chest wound.
Your trite "Show me the money" is a scapegoat. It lets you believe you've done something when all you've done is exacerbate the problem and left the festering arrow in the wound.
WHY is the money going where it is? THAT is the important question. What do you ostensibly get for your money?
If Senators did not have the power to grant favors from government, people wanting favors would not try to pay Senators for favors. Yes, it is that simple. Nobody is going to pay me to build them a race car because I can't do that.
Some may consider this an extreme example but think about it. If there were no government taxes, who would be lobbying (i.e. spending money) for tax breaks? Nobody! If the government did not or could not "protect" subsets of people such as through "professional licensing", who would be lobbying for their group to be protected? Nobody!
The sad reality in today's politics is that the arguments have been tortured into "what bad things are we going to do this time?" not "why should we be doing those bad things?".
Until the debate/arguments get back to those basics, we are all screwed.
Re:"The Republican War on Science"?
on
Science Debate 2008
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Saying the [insert party name here] Party is carrying out a "War on Science" is not being objective. It's being sensationalist in an attempt to sell books. An "anti-science" attitude is most often translated as "didn't vote the way I wanted them to". Objectivity would demand the author point that out, as opposed to sensationalism. Both Republicans and Democrats spend assloads of money on science, just on the projects they each prefer.
And much of the spending choices are independent of party. For example, fusion research funding tracks not political party, but the price of oil. The Republicans are generally pro-nuclear research, the Democrats are generally opposed to it. Objectivity demands you point that out instead of saying the Republicans are "at war with science" because they choose nuclear over solar.
Why should it suprise you that Democrats do this? This isn't about cynicism, just analysis. Power corrupts. Taxation is a tremendous power. It takes a very stout person to resist that temptation (I can think of one person in the U.S. Congress who meets that criterion).
Democrats will cozy up with virtually anyone for the right price just as much as Republicans.[1] The problem isn't which party, the problem is in the power to make such agreements in the first place. Full transparency has a role to play in curbing it, but you can rarely, if ever, be sure you have it. Better to not have the power in place to begin with.
It's not any different in principle to the Democrats in the U.S. Congress objecting to the POTUS using the power they gave him. Some of the prominent ones weren't upset with the power, just *who* was using it, and to a lesser extent how. Party warfare is a tool on par with class warfare. As long as we fight about which party is less evil, they both win because we are distracted from seeing the underlying problem is the power they fight over.
To put it another way, years ago the city I live in had a bond vote for building a new auditorium. A bond vote is a public vote on whether or not to use a bond to pay for something. It was voted down. So they found another way to pay for it and built it. You guessed it, they raised taxes. People were outraged, "we voted against this!" they cried. No, some had to correct them, you voted to not pay for it with a bond. You were never given a vote on whether or not to do it, just how to pay for it (borrow and pay off with plunder, or go straight to the plunderin).
These are some of the reasons I am against any limits on who can spend what or political campaigns. If you want to know who is paying for it, fine. But remove the limits. What we have now only gives more influence to those who can find ways around the caps, and we do not get transparency. Another problem brought to us by "bipartisanship".
It almost leads me to a conclusion that we should outlaw political parties.
1. In fact last I analyzed the visible donations ("campaign/party contributions"), Democrats get more from businesses and Republicans get more from individuals. Yet the "perception" is the opposite, and perpetuated by the media.
Also, having possibly out of date maps available in a central archive does kind of worry me. I'd rather have people getting them from us directly.
And I'd like to be able to track changes over time. A properly indexed/identified map/db should suffice for both.
In no way ever should a government agency (aka: a group of people backed up by guns to do things other people are not allowed to do) should be doing anything for profit. Ever. It is never legitimate for an organization that gets to take money away from me against my will[1] then charges me to make a profit on the services it already taxed me for. You want to charge money? Fine, stop the taxes. Charge me for the services I use, and keep my choice to use the services optional. You want to profit? Be a private business, not a government agency.
Government used as a source of profit, in any endeavor, is a primary source of bloat, greed, stupid laws, usurpation of privacy and natural rights (see: England). Whether legal or not, plunder is wrong. (arr matey what ye be sayin'?) Taxation is merely legalized plunder. To then add to that by charging me for the "service" is yet more plunder. To then want to make a profit on top of that is beyond asinine plunder.
"the unusual property of piezoelectricity, which means it can produce a charge when it's mechanically deformed"
What, never had a crystal radio? Kids these days. Piezoelectricity isn't so unusual. You can go buy many products using it. Even at outfitters (read: outdoors and camping stores) you'll find plenty of devices using piezoelectricity. Given that we've known about it from the late 1800's that isn't unusual either. Some sugars, bones (let them dry first), ceramics, and many crystals are piezoelectrical. Oh and get this we can reverse it. Maybe we can use it to make... microphones and speakers. Oh wait, been there done that. Or use it to light natural gas/propane stoves. Oh nevermind.
A while back someone (MIT?) tried to use this precise method (and material IIRC) to make power from floors at subway stations.
I could go on, but perhaps you should try Wikipedia. If they don't already have a nice article on it, I'm sure one will follow fairly quickly.
Nothing unusual about either piezoelectricity or the material used in the story.
Late last year, we tried rolling the current model of PS3s into some guest suites. In the end there was no way to accomplish this without a major retooling of the entertainment centers, costing hundreds of dollars extra per unit. In one case the excess heat generated by the PS3 caused the TV to overheat!!
Maybe try aiming the vents away from the TV? Put the PS3 above the TV (heat rises), put it above and off to the side, put a small wooden barrier between the TV and the PS3. If you couldn't figure it out you were not trying very hard. This is basic stuff.
Seriously dude, my Yamaha receiver puts out more heat than my PS3.
The guy posts that technical terms in science/computing give him wood and you think that LATER when the terms have changed it might be considered perverted? To each his/her own but seriously if the words terabyte and nanometer give you wood... that's perverted.
Must be hell going to tech conferences. That'd be some serious blue balls.
On the other hand maybe he won't need Viagra in 40-50 years, just a small device that plays those words.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a spate of "wow, I found this (really old) technology called piezoelectricty, and it will SAVE TEH WORLD" announcements lately.
Piezoelectricity is cool, but not terribly useful for useful electrical power generation. It is far more useful as a sensor mechanism. Want to know how much flex your (building, ship, car frame,etc.) structure is undergoing? Use a piezoelectrical coating to determine that. How about "Hull Integrity"? Cells of this type of coating on the surface of a ship or aircraft, or even a pipeline could be used for determining how much breach has occurred and where. Other similar uses are easily envisioned.
But these recent "power for nothing" articles are getting old. Some of them almost have a Rube Goldberg feel to them.
Unfortunately for your proposal, many sites can not be stuffed into .kids but are "kid safe" while also being not "kid safe".
The main issues with your proposal is that only parents can truly decide what is "kid safe". For example, my 4 year old might not need to access wikipedia, but my 9 year old will.
"Kid safe" is mostly shorthand for "let me use the Internet as a babysitter and blame someone else when my kids inevitably find something I would have objected to had I been paying attention to my children".
And before someone starts going off on how hard it is, know this: I have three children and put in more than 12 hours a day of working. My wife and I also home school our children. We still manage to monitor what our children do, and even better educate them on why. It is known as being a parent. If you "don't have the time" to pay attention to your kids, you should rearrange your priorities. Otherwise porn is the least of your worries to come.
Nobody ask you to be isolationist.
Of course not, we support far too many European economies for that. You love having our troops sitting around in Europe serving as your primary defense arm while not paying for it.
Further, the U.S. becoming isolationist wold require the U.S. getting out of the U.N.. That would utterly remove what little power that body currently has. Do yourself a favor. Download the data on what country makes up most of the "peace keeping forces", especially in the early highly-dangerous phases of "peacekeeping operations". Now remove the American contingent and redeploy. Yup, not going to be much peacekeeping deployments. Especially when countries realize they don't have the US troops back home in case something (like, say Russia more-than-getting pissy; and who knows what Russia would do with the US out of NATO) were to happen.
Further, when U.S. resources are no longer ensuring the free flow of oil, you'll have to do it on your own. With what forces? The ones you've deployed to UN military efforts? Why would we not be doing it? True isolationism would require complete elimination of foreign oil dependence. The U.S. can do it when it wants to, it just hasn't wanted to. Yet. It would take us a bit under a decade, or faster if we *really* wanted to push it hard.
If the U.S. went into isolationist mode, we could pull it off over the course of 10 years. In the process, the European economy would sink even further into the crapper, as would the Chinese and Japanese economies. Israel would probably beat the crap out of it's belligerent neighbors (who would get more belligerent if they knew the US was not getting involved), the UN would go belly up as would much of the international oil cartels as they lose their influence and USD cash cow.
On that note, China would make a massive change when the US pulled off the oil break because now they are the sitting ducks. Further, they would definitely launch against China and several of the countries it claims as it's own, knowing the US was going to stay out of it. They might even make a push for the oil fields. GPS? Oh, sorry, US only now, thank you. We won't even begin to contemplate what an isolationist US would do regarding the Internet.
A truly isolationist superpower is similar to a div-by-zero situation for the current state of global politics. The entire system is still based on the "natural superpower evolution" scenario. Yet none of those scenarios account for one (or the surviving) of the superpowers going isolationist.
And of course, an isolationist America would not be allowing foreign students in her universities. That would certainly impact the world. Good or bad is hard to say. Probably bad but by a slim margin.
To put it simply, you want our resources while not wanting anything else. Which is exactly what you accuse us of doing. So no, of course you aren't asking us to be isolationists. That would cost you too much and your world would be upside down and spinning.
Of course, America would be overall the better for it. Not that I'm saying we be isolationists. However, removing oil dependence (not talking just cars here people: full energy independence), pulling our troops out of Europe et al., folding the Air Force into the Navy and expanding it (net expansion since duplication would be eliminated) while decreasing standing Army troop strength, going full-bore into space exploration, and not poking our noses in anybody's business (oh, Putin wants to take Poland? That's a European problem let them handle it, they don't need us) to include our own citizens' would be a good thing.
We'd still trade of course, but participation in NATO, NAFTA, GATT, WorldBank, UN, etc. would all go bye-bye. Foreign aid? Pft. it' gone too. After all, that's putting our beliefs into other countries, and poking our nose into other countries' business. Germany can't support it's welfare programs and a military to protect their land, foreign campaigns, and oil protection? Oh well. Let them figure i
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" while looking or reaching for a big stick. For example, China wanting the US to not be able to develop defenses against their anti-satellite weaponry.
Just remember . . . one race's intimate lubricant could be another's caustic BBQ sauce.
That's better. Remember: if nothing died, it's a snack not a meal.
be sure to expect the Comcasts of the world to mark that traffic as the lowest priority possible, thus taking forever to actually get to those sites to log a complaint.
"The remote server timed out. Try again later."
A manned space station is generally not practical, yes. However for some things they are eminently practical. That is a very small subset, however.
As far as weapons, as pointed out below, the Russians have stuff with weapons (or at least did), so having similar is not far fetched. Second, China is carrying out satellite attack programs. Not every battle (indeed very few) are ever like the movies, so referencing James Bond is rather out of point range.
And finally, in space a pellet gun can be long-range with the right targeting system. In space you shoot a simple gun and that projectile will continue on until it hits something - even if that something is the atmosphere and it will hit it with all the force it had when it left your barrel. A small 9mm automatic with a strong targeting system could disable or destroy a satellite many miles away. Indeed "small arms fire" (as opposed to 23mm guns which are NOT small arms) in a cloud may actually be a very effective covert attack. Pick off certain pieces such as dishes or power panels. Do it right and it would look like ordinary debris damage.
As far as out of contact, that isn't the point. It's cheaper and better to have a defense system to stop the ASAT missile or ASAT-Sat headed toward you then it is to just let it get taken out and know about it.
There you go, all fixed.
I don't think that will be enough to get a gig as a Simpsons writer.
If you wanted to be a Hollywood writer you missed your opportunity now that the strike is over.
"Fox News is seeking a new bogeyman now that the cold war is over"
Am I the only dude from reality who has noticed a slow rise in anti-real-events stuff from EU people? Do other EU sources have this anti-US slant? Because looking at it from the outside, it's like the EU is seeking a new distraction from their own problems now that they've all kissed and made up.
Now on to a more serious side. Fox News is not the root of all evil any more than the BBC or CNN is.
Why is it "anti-China" to report that Chinese spies got caught?
Why is it anti-China to prepare for what China has stated they are planning to do?
See, some of us have studied China - specifically the Chinese government. We've read their documents. We've seen that they claim a lot more than just Taiwan. They claim entire other countries as part of their soveriegn rule and parts of other large ones (IIRC out through India and Pakistan for example).
Ok, so what, they make claims. What's the big deal? The big deal is that they intend to reclaim them. They are building their military assets. "So what, they say it's for defensive purposes." you say. Read the details. They are building their military to "reunify" their soveriegn lands.
That means that the Chinese government is looking to expand by force. They know that if they start invading countries, the UN will get involved, and that means the US (which might have to get involved anyway). The Chinese government has specifically stated they are preparing to be able to take on the US. Given their stated goals, that's not suprising.
But you don't hear about this in the media because the media is enamored with China. All that money, you see. Plus, many people think they'd like to see China as a new superpower to take on the remaining superpower. But they don't know/understand the history of China, or it's current policies, beliefs, and stated goals. Just as media pundits don't.
Note that I'm not advocating starting something. However, to be idealistically unprepared is folly, stupidity even. It would be like running an unpatched Windows install with no malware protection, no firewall, etc. on the open Internet because nobody has said they want YOUR computer specifically, just everyone else's.
It is possible that in time, they may change. However, given their history, it's not likely and if it does happen it likely won't be for a few more generations.
So your photographer gets laser surgery and due to the differences in the outer part of the eye the signature is different and now they don't match their old photos? Yes, LASIK (for example) doesn't affect normal iris scans because those use IR to scan the iris itself. But this apparently takes a picture of the eye. And yes a picture can be affected by eye surgery.
That's not quite true. It isn't so much about the engineering but the design choices, demand, and non-technical costs. Where do yo launch from? Who wants a Saturn 1b when we have Deltas? The Delta IV puts more mass to LEO than the Sat1b did. The only failure was a partial failure of a Delta IV-Heavy. Saturn 1b had 9 launches. Yes all were successes. The Delta IV (non-heavy) has had six out of six successful launches. And it can put MORE into orbit than the Sat1b. One can not honestly say that we haven't been able to replicate the Sat1b's capability.
As far as a spaceplane, I think that's a fundamentally flawed idea and know that many aerospace engineers agree. The shuttle is essentially "a bad design engineered to perfection". As long as we are using reaction-mass rockets, a straight-up stack is the way to go (i.e. Sat V).
The regulations and insurance costs are a very big driver in startups. This is in part due to the high cost of launches. High cost means you don't want to spend 100M bucks to put a $150,000 satellite in orbit. Do you have any idea what it takes to insure a 60M dollar satellite (and the "loss of use" damages)? Land space is pretty limited in inhabited parts of the world (if your rocket fails it comes down over NY? No, you aren't going to be launching. Period.).
That isn't to say the engineering part is a breeze, just not the deciding factor.
Some of it is chicken and egg. How can you get funding (private/public/whatever) to build a launch system if you don't have a market? Sorry but launching a dozen people to space for a joyride isn't profitable and probably won't be for a very long time.
Perception is the root of all space travel stagnation.
Because the Russians already had the technology/information.
Yeah because man they've got some seriously advanced space technology. I hear they have long range rockets too. We'd better steal us some of that if we want to keep up!
Oh wait, they got it from us.
But yes, China and Russia both are still "enemies". We need to remember that. Note I didn't say "The Chinese and Russians". Nor did I advocate "regime change" just now either.
Maybe they found it to hard to steal Russia's shuttle info?
Yeah because nobody ever stole information from government agencies that had tons of oversight.
Laws are not intended to be things you "pass on a whim". Therefore there is no danger in letting laws take a while to get reviewed and passed. Most of the greatest injustices and statist/fascist deeds were done in rapid-action bill passage.
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I'll take Ms. RightLaw tomorrow over Ms. RightNowLaw tonight because Ms. RightNowLaw has VD, man. The kind that never goes away.
The US Constitution was never intended to be a list of rights. It was to be a limitation on government, not we the people. Does the constitution say it lists all the rights you have? No. Does it say the government has the power to invade your privacy and take it away on a whim? No. Thus, do you have a right to privacy? Absolutely.
The constitution does not, and was never intended to, grant people rights. Only to limit government powers. How can we know this? We can read the debates from the time. Those who objected to what later became the "Bill of Rights" objected to them based on the knowledge that you can not list all of them and to list some of them implies you've defined them.
It isn't a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reading and understanding.
Ok, seriously though, it is there. There is one and only one party that can actually fix the problem: Real.
Surely this company doesn't have legal access to the source and legal authority to "fix it" and ship it out, right?
Seems virtually everybody commenting here missed that bit. According to the article, this group/company refused to let Real have the information only "other paying customers". None of your analogies apply. I'm sure Real could, if they wanted to, easily afford to be a paying customer.
Here is one that does:
I know there is a flaw in your car's alarm. I'm not going to tell you what it is, period. But I will sell the information to the local car thieves. For a fee.
Now, that isn't blackmail either. Blackmail would be me trying to get you to do something (other than pay me money since that would be extortion) or I will release the information to people you don't want to have it.
Is it wrong? Absolutely. Is it illegal? Maybe:
It's called being accomplice. In some jurisdictions, knowing something illegal is going on, having an ability to do something about it, and choosing not to is a crime. It may even be able to be called suborning(?) illegal activity.
If this was about a vulnerability is voting machines, would you maintain your position? If I knew a way to make a voting machine do what I wanted, say tally up more votes for a candidate of my choice, I could get very rich selling that information to the right people. Even if I sold it to libertarians, I'd still be in the wrong (but sorely tempted!).
Capitalism never trumps basic morality. That's not capitalism that's greed. Calling it, or accepting it as, a "common business model" is wussing out. "Everybody does it" is not just for people who want to justify doing it, it is much more useful to those who don't want to feel any responsibility to do something about a wrong or have to admit something is wrong. To do so when that comparison is faulty is just plain messed up.
Me, I don't use or like Real. But it's still wrong.
In politics, public campaign financing lets all viable candidates compete on equal footing with no ulterior motives.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Seriously, mod this guy up as Funny.
Big hole in theory #1
"Who determines who is viable?"
Big Hole in theory #2:
In order for your notion to (pretend to) work you have to ban private money being used. All of it.
Those who have the gold (can make the laws) will decide who can be considered "viable" in your proposed system. It's bad enough now, it'd only get worse. At least now if the government or powers-that-be don't think you (or want you to be) viable you can still go prove them wrong by getting your own funding.
By banning private funding you just cut off millions of people's free speech. That's your nose lying on the floor as you laugh at your face.
There is one and only one solution to the "problem" of campaign contributions:
1: Reduce the demand.
Politics follows supply and demand laws like virtually everything else. If the legislators have less power there will be less demand for them. The more power a legislator can have the higher the price will be.
2:
Remove all limits that natural people have on contributions and ban *any* corporation or other government created/sanctioned entity from having any. Let PEOPLE decide.
3:
Realize that just because person A gives money to candidate A doesn't mean candidate A is bound in any way to follow what Person A wants. Most people/groups contribute to people that *already* are going to or are more likely to vote the way they want them to.
The vast amounts of money going to elections is a symptom, not the cause. Fix the cause (excessive power among legislators), everything else is a finger bandage on a sucking chest wound.
Your trite "Show me the money" is a scapegoat. It lets you believe you've done something when all you've done is exacerbate the problem and left the festering arrow in the wound.
WHY is the money going where it is? THAT is the important question. What do you ostensibly get for your money?
If Senators did not have the power to grant favors from government, people wanting favors would not try to pay Senators for favors. Yes, it is that simple. Nobody is going to pay me to build them a race car because I can't do that.
Some may consider this an extreme example but think about it. If there were no government taxes, who would be lobbying (i.e. spending money) for tax breaks? Nobody! If the government did not or could not "protect" subsets of people such as through "professional licensing", who would be lobbying for their group to be protected? Nobody!
The sad reality in today's politics is that the arguments have been tortured into "what bad things are we going to do this time?" not "why should we be doing those bad things?".
Until the debate/arguments get back to those basics, we are all screwed.
Saying the [insert party name here] Party is carrying out a "War on Science" is not being objective. It's being sensationalist in an attempt to sell books. An "anti-science" attitude is most often translated as "didn't vote the way I wanted them to". Objectivity would demand the author point that out, as opposed to sensationalism. Both Republicans and Democrats spend assloads of money on science, just on the projects they each prefer.
And much of the spending choices are independent of party. For example, fusion research funding tracks not political party, but the price of oil. The Republicans are generally pro-nuclear research, the Democrats are generally opposed to it. Objectivity demands you point that out instead of saying the Republicans are "at war with science" because they choose nuclear over solar.
Why should it suprise you that Democrats do this? This isn't about cynicism, just analysis. Power corrupts. Taxation is a tremendous power. It takes a very stout person to resist that temptation (I can think of one person in the U.S. Congress who meets that criterion).
Democrats will cozy up with virtually anyone for the right price just as much as Republicans.[1] The problem isn't which party, the problem is in the power to make such agreements in the first place. Full transparency has a role to play in curbing it, but you can rarely, if ever, be sure you have it. Better to not have the power in place to begin with.
It's not any different in principle to the Democrats in the U.S. Congress objecting to the POTUS using the power they gave him. Some of the prominent ones weren't upset with the power, just *who* was using it, and to a lesser extent how. Party warfare is a tool on par with class warfare. As long as we fight about which party is less evil, they both win because we are distracted from seeing the underlying problem is the power they fight over.
To put it another way, years ago the city I live in had a bond vote for building a new auditorium. A bond vote is a public vote on whether or not to use a bond to pay for something. It was voted down. So they found another way to pay for it and built it. You guessed it, they raised taxes. People were outraged, "we voted against this!" they cried. No, some had to correct them, you voted to not pay for it with a bond. You were never given a vote on whether or not to do it, just how to pay for it (borrow and pay off with plunder, or go straight to the plunderin).
These are some of the reasons I am against any limits on who can spend what or political campaigns. If you want to know who is paying for it, fine. But remove the limits. What we have now only gives more influence to those who can find ways around the caps, and we do not get transparency. Another problem brought to us by "bipartisanship".
It almost leads me to a conclusion that we should outlaw political parties.
1. In fact last I analyzed the visible donations ("campaign/party contributions"), Democrats get more from businesses and Republicans get more from individuals. Yet the "perception" is the opposite, and perpetuated by the media.
Also, having possibly out of date maps available in a central archive does kind of worry me. I'd rather have people getting them from us directly.
And I'd like to be able to track changes over time. A properly indexed/identified map/db should suffice for both.
In no way ever should a government agency (aka: a group of people backed up by guns to do things other people are not allowed to do) should be doing anything for profit. Ever. It is never legitimate for an organization that gets to take money away from me against my will[1] then charges me to make a profit on the services it already taxed me for. You want to charge money? Fine, stop the taxes. Charge me for the services I use, and keep my choice to use the services optional. You want to profit? Be a private business, not a government agency.
Government used as a source of profit, in any endeavor, is a primary source of bloat, greed, stupid laws, usurpation of privacy and natural rights (see: England). Whether legal or not, plunder is wrong. (arr matey what ye be sayin'?) Taxation is merely legalized plunder. To then add to that by charging me for the "service" is yet more plunder. To then want to make a profit on top of that is beyond asinine plunder.
What this office is doing is asinine plunder.
"the unusual property of piezoelectricity, which means it can produce a charge when it's mechanically deformed"
... microphones and speakers. Oh wait, been there done that. Or use it to light natural gas/propane stoves. Oh nevermind.
What, never had a crystal radio? Kids these days. Piezoelectricity isn't so unusual. You can go buy many products using it. Even at outfitters (read: outdoors and camping stores) you'll find plenty of devices using piezoelectricity. Given that we've known about it from the late 1800's that isn't unusual either. Some sugars, bones (let them dry first), ceramics, and many crystals are piezoelectrical. Oh and get this we can reverse it. Maybe we can use it to make
A while back someone (MIT?) tried to use this precise method (and material IIRC) to make power from floors at subway stations.
I could go on, but perhaps you should try Wikipedia. If they don't already have a nice article on it, I'm sure one will follow fairly quickly.
Nothing unusual about either piezoelectricity or the material used in the story.
Maybe try aiming the vents away from the TV? Put the PS3 above the TV (heat rises), put it above and off to the side, put a small wooden barrier between the TV and the PS3. If you couldn't figure it out you were not trying very hard. This is basic stuff.
Seriously dude, my Yamaha receiver puts out more heat than my PS3.
The guy posts that technical terms in science/computing give him wood and you think that LATER when the terms have changed it might be considered perverted? To each his/her own but seriously if the words terabyte and nanometer give you wood... that's perverted.
Must be hell going to tech conferences. That'd be some serious blue balls.
On the other hand maybe he won't need Viagra in 40-50 years, just a small device that plays those words.