No, in civil lawsuits you go after everybody who has any relation to your problem. Unrelated people will be dropped from the suit by the judge. The reason for that is simple: it's very easy to remove someone from the lawsuit, but next to impossible to add one. So you begin with the widest audience.
Batteries represent major cost item in the car. Would you part with a new battery that you paid $15,000 for hoping that you will get in return something at least comparable? Would you be happy knowing that you will never see your new battery?
It is definitely possible to apply "paradigm shift" and imagine some sort of a co-op which you join and become eligible to rent batteries from a shared pool. But we know how many unfair (and criminal) opportunities that opens up, with batteries being so expensive...
Electric case: 0.5 * 0.9 * 0.75 * 0.9 = 0.30. So the efficiency of the electric car is 30% (70% loss), not 5%.
But the conclusion (that the e.cars are hopeless) is still wrong. The total cost of the system is calculated as sum of unit_cost * number_of_units. It is cheaper to upgrade the power plant than one million cars.
Electric motors are cheaper to make than most things you have in your car (engine, transmission, axle, shocks, etc..)
The catch here is that you have a motor per wheel, and thus you increase probability of failure.
So everytime you change a tire you change the rims too?
Yes, of course. Tires can not be mounted onto rims just with your own [average] hands. 50 years ago it was possible, if you are a young, strong man who knows how to use tire irons. With proliferation of tubeless tires and wheel balancing the process is not so easy.
It would only prove that you, being an obedient citizen, made sure that the RIAA's property is protected from copying by encrypting it, and providing the password only to your closest friends (which is OK, as RIAA says.)
If RIAA breaks into your computer (through a wide-open p2p port even, still unauthorized!), downloads an encrypted file, and then breaks the technological measure intended to preserve the copyright... count how many violations of the law, including DMCA, that would amount to:-)
if both the server and the client(you) are typical p2p clients, your example falls flat immediatly.
Of course, p2p programs must be changed to support any encryption - and they must stay changed.
you would have to have some way of communicating the 'secret' be it an encryption key
This problem has been solved by using asymmetric ciphers (such as RSA). Two keys are generated; you give one to someone, and that someone can use this key to create a ciphertext for you. But only you, using the other key (which you never send anywhere!) can decrypt the data. Both keys are just long numbers, and you can create and destroy them as it suits you.
Any such transformation, to work, must be publicly known.
Why publicly? The session between two p2p nodes is a private matter of those two nodes, and the "transformation" (generally known as encryption) can also be decided between this node and that node when they establish a session. It does not need to be elaborate; but if it is, then it is unbreakable.
As a simple example, you send your session key to the server, and the server sends everything to you encrypted with that key. If you are the man in the middle, you have to listen to the whole process to catch the key as it flies to the other side.
As a more complex example, you send to the server your public key, and the server encrypts everything to it. Only your private key can decrypt that. Since you don't need to verify your identity to the server, the PKI and trust is not necessary. Any PGP or GPG product will do the job.
Accelerometers are quite expensive ($100 for sufficiently sensitive ones.) They can be built into the notebooks; however with today's price of a new, good notebook being well below $1000 there is not much room for innovation...
Plus I don't know how much filtering is done on the line-in side.
Most likely, the LPF cuts away everything above 20 kHz. This is because when sampling at 44.1 kSa/s you can't allow anything faster than 22.05 kHz to come through - this will mess up your A/D process in no time.
The proper solution is to have switchable filters before the A/D. The filter must be matched to the A/D sampling rate. However I don't think anyone makes it this way, it's awfully expensive and won't be appreciated (or even comprehended!) by 99.999% of computer users out there. Musicians, OTOH, are served by a completely different breed of hardware, and they sample at 96 kSa/s.
The parent poster is correct. The bandwidth of any signal that is not wave goes beyond its lowest spectrum spike. Nyquist equation must be applied to the highest frequency that you want to see.
You described a stroboscopic (sampling) oscilloscope. However it has a serious, theoretical flaw - the bandwidth of the signal is still limited to the 20 kHz that the sound card can take in.
What you are doing is basically undersampling the incoming signal and then assuming that the original falls into one of many aliases that the undersampling generated.
In other words, if the signal changes while you are sampling and reconstructing it, the change is lost and results in incorrect reconstruction.
The original poster's question assumes that the PC-based scope is the best solution to his problem. My EE experience tells me that generally you want a standalone scope (you want as many screens as you can get, space be damned.) Teacher's needs, of course, may benefit from the PC-based scope (multicasting the readings to students' computers, for one.)
Of course the powers-to-be have better things to do than fish through all this data.
The powers-to-be will not be sifting through all this data. They will, however, go with a fine-toothed comb through the data of the "person of interest" of the hour. Be sure, they will find everything that they need.
WinME was unmaintainable, unsupportable, and plain barely worked. MS did well by dumping the ancient, "end of the road" code base and switching into a better, C++ based code that allows them to actually do something with it.
This situation is neither unique nor particularly disastrous, many s/w houses encounter it from time to time. The cure is exactly what MS did - to shed the old stuff and leave it behind. Even most of the drivers for WinME had to be written in the x86 assembly... that costs.
The customer does not sign an executable by "clicking a checkbox". This is done by an offline cryptographic signing of a hash of the executable. Then upon attempted execution, the code is hashed again and the database of signatures searched. If there is no verifiable signature for this hash, the code does not run at all. This has to be done on the level of the OS, in the loader or very close to it.
I am unsure what corporate environments can do right now. They can reset all exec bits all they want, but how will it work if the stoopid luser is allowed to save t33n_b00b135.jpg.vbs, short of prohibiting any save onto the local drive? Even if you inherit "disallow exec", there are always other drives, like floppy... and such a setup is awfully tedious.
But I guess this is coming anyway, in Palladium form or some other. As long as the owner has the signing key, it is OK.
It would be good enough to add an option that disables execution of any code that is not signed by MS or by the customer. Corporate environments would be very excited, since only official, trusted and licensed code runs. MS already has this for the drivers, why not to extend it to.exe and make it changeable by admin only?
I think it is as legal as trying to spend a $100 bill that you just printed at home instead of the bill that got destroyed in the washing machine... after all, it's just a piece of paper:-)
It won't work because most sound cards are incapable of recording frequencies BELOW 20 Hz. And those would be the frequencies you will be getting while sweeping by hand.
The population can have handguns, but handguns won't do much against the adversary equipped with missiles and helicopters.
Iraqis probably kill more US soldiers daily than US soldiers kill iraqis. That is for foot soldiers, who fight more or less on same terms. Helicopters killed more US soldiers (by crashing) than they killed the enemy, since the official war ended. Tanks, airplanes, H-bombs are useless.
But the movie is still called "Seven Samurai", not "Seventy Peasants"... also, all peasant uprisings failed. Most peasants could not fight well, and the trained troops had an advantage. Revolutions started winning only when firearms enabled weak and young and old to fight superior troops.
There is an answer to your question already. Kings and knights were armed with manually operated weapons, and the peasants were forbidden to own any weapons (even despite the fact that the peasants were not trained to use them.)
The result was that the strongest men ruled, and everyone else was oppressed (as illustrated in one well known movie:-)
If you logically extend Middle Ages into today, you will see something resembling Japan 100 years ago. Rifles and other firearms were not welcome in Japan until about 20th century...
It is a completely different question, though, whether you'd like to live in such a society. Have a look at Rurouni Kenshin.
As they are, USB Flash drives must be in your physical posession to read and write. However, what about wireless ones? Will it be possible to read the data wirelessly from the drive in someone's pocket?
There will be some sort of "application-level security". Which, in this case, means asking for some password when you mount the drive. However I am sure that a simple dictionary attack will crack most of these passwords. And once you know the password of someone, you can read his data (and even write!) - he is not likely to change the password.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in civil lawsuits you go after everybody who has any relation to your problem. Unrelated people will be dropped from the suit by the judge. The reason for that is simple: it's very easy to remove someone from the lawsuit, but next to impossible to add one. So you begin with the widest audience.
It is definitely possible to apply "paradigm shift" and imagine some sort of a co-op which you join and become eligible to rent batteries from a shared pool. But we know how many unfair (and criminal) opportunities that opens up, with batteries being so expensive...
But the conclusion (that the e.cars are hopeless) is still wrong. The total cost of the system is calculated as sum of unit_cost * number_of_units. It is cheaper to upgrade the power plant than one million cars.
The catch here is that you have a motor per wheel, and thus you increase probability of failure.
So everytime you change a tire you change the rims too?
Yes, of course. Tires can not be mounted onto rims just with your own [average] hands. 50 years ago it was possible, if you are a young, strong man who knows how to use tire irons. With proliferation of tubeless tires and wheel balancing the process is not so easy.
If RIAA breaks into your computer (through a wide-open p2p port even, still unauthorized!), downloads an encrypted file, and then breaks the technological measure intended to preserve the copyright... count how many violations of the law, including DMCA, that would amount to :-)
Of course, p2p programs must be changed to support any encryption - and they must stay changed.
you would have to have some way of communicating the 'secret' be it an encryption key
This problem has been solved by using asymmetric ciphers (such as RSA). Two keys are generated; you give one to someone, and that someone can use this key to create a ciphertext for you. But only you, using the other key (which you never send anywhere!) can decrypt the data. Both keys are just long numbers, and you can create and destroy them as it suits you.
Why publicly? The session between two p2p nodes is a private matter of those two nodes, and the "transformation" (generally known as encryption) can also be decided between this node and that node when they establish a session. It does not need to be elaborate; but if it is, then it is unbreakable.
As a simple example, you send your session key to the server, and the server sends everything to you encrypted with that key. If you are the man in the middle, you have to listen to the whole process to catch the key as it flies to the other side.
As a more complex example, you send to the server your public key, and the server encrypts everything to it. Only your private key can decrypt that. Since you don't need to verify your identity to the server, the PKI and trust is not necessary. Any PGP or GPG product will do the job.
SCO can sue MS and, by mutual agreement, SCO wins. This can establish a precedent.
Accelerometers are quite expensive ($100 for sufficiently sensitive ones.) They can be built into the notebooks; however with today's price of a new, good notebook being well below $1000 there is not much room for innovation...
The bandwidth of any signal that is not a sine wave goes beyond its lowest spectrum spike.
Most likely, the LPF cuts away everything above 20 kHz. This is because when sampling at 44.1 kSa/s you can't allow anything faster than 22.05 kHz to come through - this will mess up your A/D process in no time.
The proper solution is to have switchable filters before the A/D. The filter must be matched to the A/D sampling rate. However I don't think anyone makes it this way, it's awfully expensive and won't be appreciated (or even comprehended!) by 99.999% of computer users out there. Musicians, OTOH, are served by a completely different breed of hardware, and they sample at 96 kSa/s.
The parent poster is correct. The bandwidth of any signal that is not wave goes beyond its lowest spectrum spike. Nyquist equation must be applied to the highest frequency that you want to see.
What you are doing is basically undersampling the incoming signal and then assuming that the original falls into one of many aliases that the undersampling generated.
In other words, if the signal changes while you are sampling and reconstructing it, the change is lost and results in incorrect reconstruction.
The original poster's question assumes that the PC-based scope is the best solution to his problem. My EE experience tells me that generally you want a standalone scope (you want as many screens as you can get, space be damned.) Teacher's needs, of course, may benefit from the PC-based scope (multicasting the readings to students' computers, for one.)
The powers-to-be will not be sifting through all this data. They will, however, go with a fine-toothed comb through the data of the "person of interest" of the hour. Be sure, they will find everything that they need.
The Sheriff is speeding, and then he receives a call to haul you to jail for speeding :-) Great plan!
This situation is neither unique nor particularly disastrous, many s/w houses encounter it from time to time. The cure is exactly what MS did - to shed the old stuff and leave it behind. Even most of the drivers for WinME had to be written in the x86 assembly... that costs.
I am unsure what corporate environments can do right now. They can reset all exec bits all they want, but how will it work if the stoopid luser is allowed to save t33n_b00b135.jpg.vbs, short of prohibiting any save onto the local drive? Even if you inherit "disallow exec", there are always other drives, like floppy... and such a setup is awfully tedious.
But I guess this is coming anyway, in Palladium form or some other. As long as the owner has the signing key, it is OK.
It would be quite difficult to attempt sepukku with a katana.
It would be good enough to add an option that disables execution of any code that is not signed by MS or by the customer. Corporate environments would be very excited, since only official, trusted and licensed code runs. MS already has this for the drivers, why not to extend it to .exe and make it changeable by admin only?
I think it is as legal as trying to spend a $100 bill that you just printed at home instead of the bill that got destroyed in the washing machine... after all, it's just a piece of paper :-)
It won't work because most sound cards are incapable of recording frequencies BELOW 20 Hz. And those would be the frequencies you will be getting while sweeping by hand.
Iraqis probably kill more US soldiers daily than US soldiers kill iraqis. That is for foot soldiers, who fight more or less on same terms. Helicopters killed more US soldiers (by crashing) than they killed the enemy, since the official war ended. Tanks, airplanes, H-bombs are useless.
But the movie is still called "Seven Samurai", not "Seventy Peasants"... also, all peasant uprisings failed. Most peasants could not fight well, and the trained troops had an advantage. Revolutions started winning only when firearms enabled weak and young and old to fight superior troops.
The result was that the strongest men ruled, and everyone else was oppressed (as illustrated in one well known movie :-)
If you logically extend Middle Ages into today, you will see something resembling Japan 100 years ago. Rifles and other firearms were not welcome in Japan until about 20th century...
It is a completely different question, though, whether you'd like to live in such a society. Have a look at Rurouni Kenshin.
There will be some sort of "application-level security". Which, in this case, means asking for some password when you mount the drive. However I am sure that a simple dictionary attack will crack most of these passwords. And once you know the password of someone, you can read his data (and even write!) - he is not likely to change the password.