Note that this is a proposed law in Washington State, not the whole country. Not that we should just forget about the rights of Washington's citizens, but I suspect a quite a few people will misunderstand the summary as it stands now.
Don't delude yourself. If this gets a foothold in one place, other states will get the idea that this is something they can actually get away with. Before you know it, you have 50 states with it, and no alternative state that you can move to to boycott it.
Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait......
GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. QED.
why else would we have the 10th amendment?
Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?
They haven't. Libertarians are pretty tough on that one, but they constitute an ideology, rather than a political party. The states better start taking it seriously again. It may already be too late.
forcing a religion on people via the government is gone
Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.
foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,
Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.
a renewed focus on alternate energies
No argument.
and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.
I suppose you have better ideas. Let's have your research, or at least your speculations.
Every president will do good things and bad things. GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. Socialized medicine? What next, momma gub'mint thinking for me? My opinion remains that a president is there to interface to the rest of the world, not run my life (why else would we have the 10th amendment?)
Great. So now those new scientists with few/none papers or unpopular theories are going to have to fight even harder to establish credibility and get published.
As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.
How does cowing people down make them any safer? Safer from who?
As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.
<obligatory>A man who gives up his freedom for a little temporary safety deserves neither and forfeits both.</obligatory>
to paraphrase you would be happy if the 9/11 guys had ak-47s and the passengers had guns as well?
<sarcasm>I'm almost entirely sure Tex is going to whip out his trusty AK-47 (Named Bessie) because the stewardess told him he's too drunk and she isn't going to give him another shot of Jim if she'll please.</sarcasm>
I wouldn't be happy. It was a bad situation to begin with. Those guys were ready to die.
Who cares what weapons were used in those hijackings? Their goal was to use the planes as a weapon, not control passengers. If the hijackers could've gotten an airliner without the passengers and crew, I can guarantee they would have.
Off point, but don't confuse bigger with better. An AK has a bigger bark than a Glock 9mm, but the bullets are just as effective. In a situation like an airplane, an AK would be unwieldly, whereas a knife would be quite practical.
The way it is now, we're being systematically cowed down and conditioned to unconditionally look to arbitrary authority to save us from danger.
The only problem with that logic is, what if the terorrists are planning on landing in some foreigh land like old times. But, because of the 9/11 incident, the passengers fight back and the plane crashes killing everyone on board. The problem is, you usually won't know the intent of the hijackers.
Well, passengers don't assume the plane is being taken for money or to another country anymore. Now the passengers automatically assume that their plane is being taken for use as a weapon. Therefore, they have two choices:
Remain passive and be guaranteed to die when the plane makes contact with the target
Fight back and hope that the hijackers don't detonate the bomb/scuttle the plane
IANAM, but according to game theory, with those assumptions in mind, 2 is always the winning choice.
You mention NASA management paying attention to the true risks instead of filling out mountains of paper work to change a bolt. What will actually happen is that they will do both, and blanket the real risks with their own mountains of paper work to make damn sure (complete with verifiable paper trail) that they paid attention to and mitigated those risks. When the Challenger blew up, the political situation pushed them towards launching in spite of the risks. Today, the political situation is pushing them towards making damn sure no more astronauts are lost, and doing everything they can to demonstrate that this is their overriding concern. So they will err on the side of caution.
No, their overriding concern is completing mountains of paperwork to generate a paper trail indicating that mitigated any risks in changing one of the loose bolts holding the pilot's seat down.
However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.
Hot-headed and/or drunk implies there is absolutely no premeditation. Making a plane crash usually takes some planning.
Somehow I doubt a hot-headed/drunk passenger is going to be able to get into the cockpit and do anything to the pilot even if he wanted to. Generally, his target will be another passenger or a stewardess, not the pilot.
If it means I'll be safer from intentional hijacking, I'll take the risk of 2 or 3 crashes a year over losing my freedom any day. Even if I'm on one of those crashing flights.
Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.
Box-cutters make terrible weapons, unless your target is unarmed or can't fight back.
Actually, I suspect if people were less cowed by authorities and were allowed to carry self-defensive equipment, 9/11 would never have happened. 4 box-cutters vs 100 known-to-be-unarmed victims is far different than 4 box-cutters vs 100 potentially-armed freemen.
The parent says peak deceleration. I take that to mean that lesser deceleration could be employed, at the cost of it taking longer. Thus less stress on craft and occupants.
Given that the object in scope only cares about the instantaneous acceleration, I would say that peak acceleration is certainly critical.
Take a fighter aircraft. The specs usually indicate "plane will fall apart if it experiences over 9g". That's not average g. If the plane is flown in a curve that puts 7g on it, it won't break. If it goes above 9g at any time, it will break up at that time (not on average over the turn). Let's say the pilot is taking a curve at 8g average for 7 seconds. A measurement is taken every second. For 6 of those measurements, we got 7g (good). On the remaining one, he suddenly pulled back on the stick, and put 14g on the wings (very bad). Suddenly the pilot is sitting in a ballistic projectile without wings. I can almost guarantee it happened when he exceeded 9g instantaneous.
YES! Under a rock in my parents' basement. I haven't seen sunlight in years! And I have Linux to thank! Thanks Linux!
ati have the binary drivers for linux (fglrx) that works fine on most things and are getting better and better since AMD aquired ATI.
but even better, AMD/ATI is releasing the specs and example code to open source developers, so the open driver gets build... most ATI cards alredy have 2D working fine and basic 3D running. with time we will see if the open drivers will get faster than the closed ones
Sounds like I might be in the market for an ATi next time I get a card, unless nVidia gets their act together and open-sources their stuff.
While you missed the sarcasm, I do agree with you. You could probably actually use the actual cell signal to get far more precise. I was recently working on GPS route-planning software that can get down to an error of +- 1" (one inch, no mistake). It used cell phone signals to eliminate the GPS error.
This is really easy, and it even works in Darwinism.
What if instead of continually repeating the exercise, the recipients of the fake spam get gently berated if they take the bait the first time. Then, if they fall for it again, a couple of guys in black suits and sunglasses show up at midnight to offer the option of "the pill" or a "bullet".
I think that would cut down on a lot of spam response.
Alternately, if someone falls for the v14gra spam more than once, send cyanide pills instead of viagra.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that this is a proposed law in Washington State, not the whole country. Not that we should just forget about the rights of Washington's citizens, but I suspect a quite a few people will misunderstand the summary as it stands now.
Don't delude yourself. If this gets a foothold in one place, other states will get the idea that this is something they can actually get away with. Before you know it, you have 50 states with it, and no alternative state that you can move to to boycott it.
Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait......
GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. QED.
why else would we have the 10th amendment?
Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?
They haven't. Libertarians are pretty tough on that one, but they constitute an ideology, rather than a political party. The states better start taking it seriously again. It may already be too late.
Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights.
Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?
I've been hearing far more rumblings of secession the past two years, as well. And this time it isn't confined to the South.
In the last month or so, much had changed.
The US's focus on science is back,
How about that manned space program?
forcing a religion on people via the government is gone
Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.
foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,
Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.
a renewed focus on alternate energies
No argument.
and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.
I suppose you have better ideas. Let's have your research, or at least your speculations.
Every president will do good things and bad things. GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. Socialized medicine? What next, momma gub'mint thinking for me? My opinion remains that a president is there to interface to the rest of the world, not run my life (why else would we have the 10th amendment?)
Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.
Damn.
The more things CHANGE!, the more they stay the same. That's CHANGE! you can HOPE! for.
Consequently, we're going to have to nuke you from orbit (as this is the only way to be sure).
Can't do that, Luke. Obama is trying to ban those now, along with the rest of the space program.
Great. So now those new scientists with few/none papers or unpopular theories are going to have to fight even harder to establish credibility and get published.
Every rose has it's thorn.
If they can immortalize liver, why can't they immortalize the rest of me?
Aren't those the little pieces of paper that go under my wipers and always make it rain/snow?
As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.
How does cowing people down make them any safer? Safer from who?
As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.
<obligatory>A man who gives up his freedom for a little temporary safety deserves neither and forfeits both.</obligatory>
It continues to happen.
to paraphrase you would be happy if the 9/11 guys had ak-47s and the passengers had guns as well?
<sarcasm>I'm almost entirely sure Tex is going to whip out his trusty AK-47 (Named Bessie) because the stewardess told him he's too drunk and she isn't going to give him another shot of Jim if she'll please.</sarcasm>
I wouldn't be happy. It was a bad situation to begin with. Those guys were ready to die.
Who cares what weapons were used in those hijackings? Their goal was to use the planes as a weapon, not control passengers. If the hijackers could've gotten an airliner without the passengers and crew, I can guarantee they would have.
Off point, but don't confuse bigger with better. An AK has a bigger bark than a Glock 9mm, but the bullets are just as effective. In a situation like an airplane, an AK would be unwieldly, whereas a knife would be quite practical.
The way it is now, we're being systematically cowed down and conditioned to unconditionally look to arbitrary authority to save us from danger.
The only problem with that logic is, what if the terorrists are planning on landing in some foreigh land like old times. But, because of the 9/11 incident, the passengers fight back and the plane crashes killing everyone on board. The problem is, you usually won't know the intent of the hijackers.
Well, passengers don't assume the plane is being taken for money or to another country anymore. Now the passengers automatically assume that their plane is being taken for use as a weapon. Therefore, they have two choices:
IANAM, but according to game theory, with those assumptions in mind, 2 is always the winning choice.
You mention NASA management paying attention to the true risks instead of filling out mountains of paper work to change a bolt. What will actually happen is that they will do both, and blanket the real risks with their own mountains of paper work to make damn sure (complete with verifiable paper trail) that they paid attention to and mitigated those risks. When the Challenger blew up, the political situation pushed them towards launching in spite of the risks. Today, the political situation is pushing them towards making damn sure no more astronauts are lost, and doing everything they can to demonstrate that this is their overriding concern. So they will err on the side of caution.
No, their overriding concern is completing mountains of paperwork to generate a paper trail indicating that mitigated any risks in changing one of the loose bolts holding the pilot's seat down.
However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.
Hot-headed and/or drunk implies there is absolutely no premeditation. Making a plane crash usually takes some planning.
Somehow I doubt a hot-headed/drunk passenger is going to be able to get into the cockpit and do anything to the pilot even if he wanted to. Generally, his target will be another passenger or a stewardess, not the pilot.
If it means I'll be safer from intentional hijacking, I'll take the risk of 2 or 3 crashes a year over losing my freedom any day. Even if I'm on one of those crashing flights.
Actually, this is an interesting way to win a Darwin.
Jealous man wins Darwin Award for smashing Genitals with friend's Darwin Award.
Not a sword, a dagger. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to carry either on an airplane. 9/11 happened because 4 guys with box-cutters could commandeer an airplane. Obviously, this tactic would not work today, but I think that Sikhs can check their daggers. Not wanting the general public carrying weapons on a plane is neither paranoid nor moronic.
Box-cutters make terrible weapons, unless your target is unarmed or can't fight back.
Actually, I suspect if people were less cowed by authorities and were allowed to carry self-defensive equipment, 9/11 would never have happened. 4 box-cutters vs 100 known-to-be-unarmed victims is far different than 4 box-cutters vs 100 potentially-armed freemen.
The parent says peak deceleration. I take that to mean that lesser deceleration could be employed, at the cost of it taking longer. Thus less stress on craft and occupants.
Given that the object in scope only cares about the instantaneous acceleration, I would say that peak acceleration is certainly critical.
Take a fighter aircraft. The specs usually indicate "plane will fall apart if it experiences over 9g". That's not average g. If the plane is flown in a curve that puts 7g on it, it won't break. If it goes above 9g at any time, it will break up at that time (not on average over the turn). Let's say the pilot is taking a curve at 8g average for 7 seconds. A measurement is taken every second. For 6 of those measurements, we got 7g (good). On the remaining one, he suddenly pulled back on the stick, and put 14g on the wings (very bad). Suddenly the pilot is sitting in a ballistic projectile without wings. I can almost guarantee it happened when he exceeded 9g instantaneous.
?!?
have you been under a rock the last few months?
YES! Under a rock in my parents' basement. I haven't seen sunlight in years! And I have Linux to thank! Thanks Linux!
ati have the binary drivers for linux (fglrx) that works fine on most things and are getting better and better since AMD aquired ATI.
but even better, AMD/ATI is releasing the specs and example code to open source developers, so the open driver gets build... most ATI cards alredy have 2D working fine and basic 3D running. with time we will see if the open drivers will get faster than the closed ones
Sounds like I might be in the market for an ATi next time I get a card, unless nVidia gets their act together and open-sources their stuff.
While you missed the sarcasm
<cheek><tongue /></cheek>
That was meant as part of the original reply.
While you missed the sarcasm, I do agree with you. You could probably actually use the actual cell signal to get far more precise. I was recently working on GPS route-planning software that can get down to an error of +- 1" (one inch, no mistake). It used cell phone signals to eliminate the GPS error.
This is really easy, and it even works in Darwinism.
What if instead of continually repeating the exercise, the recipients of the fake spam get gently berated if they take the bait the first time. Then, if they fall for it again, a couple of guys in black suits and sunglasses show up at midnight to offer the option of "the pill" or a "bullet".
I think that would cut down on a lot of spam response.
Alternately, if someone falls for the v14gra spam more than once, send cyanide pills instead of viagra.
Can you come up with a protocol that will not allow a zombie box to, as you say, authenticate properly?
RFC 3514 does propose a solution to this sort of thing...
Wouldn't it be easier to just encase the prison in a big faraday cage?
Typical bright idea from lawmakers: "Hey, lets solve the problem by just hiding it from everybody else!"
This is just a government instantiation of "sweep the problem under the rug." Move along now, nothing new to see here.