Radiation is still a great additive. You can seal and sterilize things just like canning, but without having to boil it. Now radioisotopes.. those aren't such great additives....
The credentials are available. All you have to do is write your own CDM to request them. Add a layer in the middle to relay the authentication between the browser and the true CDM. Once validation is performed, the data passed between the two would be unencrypted, as trying to encrypt and then decrypt the video every step of the way would bring any computer to its knees.
Suppose the CDM actually emits encrypted HDMI data - most monitors today can take HDMI input.
Applications cannot emit "encrypted HDMI data". They output graphics, which the graphics card composites with other graphics, and then outputs over HDMI. That violates any ability to sandbox the application. That also requires the application have custom code to support each architecture on each operating system you intend to be usable on. It also requires the graphics card be able to accept encrypted graphics from the data, to protect it from the browser. All of this could be avoided by simply ditching DRM and letting the browser handle things.
How are you going to check the binary if you've explicitly isolated the CDM from any access to the system? Either you allow the CDM direct access to the OS so it can perform the check on its own, or you can provide an interface that can be trivially spoofed. If the CDM access the OS directly, aside from the security implications that causes, now your open source OS can attack it in the same exact manner, returning whatever information the CDM wants to see, rather than the reality.
The simple truth is that you cannot have open source anything anywhere within the code chain from the point the content exits the CDM to the point the content is sent along with wire to your display device. If you are breached anywhere, then your system is insecure, and if your system is insecure, your content will be stolen and freely distributed on the internet. All you've prevented with all this DRM is the typical honest customer from being able to flexibly access the content in the manner they chose. The typical honest customer needs to be taught this, that DRM has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and everything to do with artificially restricting their abilities. Education is the key to fighting all forms of oppression.
Wrong side of that little island down there called Australia...
It easily has the range to reach this spot
Sure. Their fuel load was about 4000km shy of reaching the Kermadec Trench, but they could have easily made that up by playing some Queen over the PA system.
If they have to increase costs to cover refurbishment and reuse, then the solution is to simply not do it. The only reason to have reusable spacecraft is because it is cheaper.
The Space Shuttle more often than not landed right back at the Cape, just a few miles from where it launched.
No one ever intended for the Falcon first stage to land at sea. These are test flights. They are testing the ability of the craft and autopilot system to slow to a stop, and then slowly descend to the ground. Being test flights, they are uncertain of the results, and if they fuck up, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to crash in the ocean than crash anywhere near your launch pad. Flying east from the Cape, there is no option but to perform a direct abort and fly back where you came from. Flying south out of Vandenberg, they may find it better to set up a landing site a few hundred miles down the coast, and ship it back to the launch site on a barge.
Actually, that's not true. It's damn tough to get your fuel fraction up to 98%, and even 95% is considered excellent. Rockets use staging to "fake" this ratio, and produce a higher effective fuel fraction than what is actually present.
The fuel cost of a (liquid) rocket is chump change. It's typically less than a single percent of the total launch cost. The vast majority of the cost is in the vehicle and rocket motors, so even if you have to bring twice as much fuel, as well as a more powerful (more expensive) first stage, it's completely worth it even if you only reuse the stage once. Where NASA got into trouble is that the Orbiter basically had to be rebuilt after each flight, eating up any potential gains in economy, plus considerably more.
Tons of engines are designed for reuse. Pretty much any in-orbit engine must be, by definition, reusable. The difference is that we're talking high performance launch engines, rather than the low performance, orbital maneuvering engines. The X37B does not have a launch engine, it has a hypergolic maneuvering engine.
Depending on location, the Tesla and Leaf will be powered by coal, diesel fuel, methane, water, steam, wind, sunlight, or uranium. Just because the power comes from the grid does not make it any more homogeneous than a vehicle with an onboard generator.
From the other direction, diesel-electric submarines have been diesel-electric submarines for decades, and could run their electrical systems and charge their batteries off shore power when docked. That's identical to a "plug-in mild hybrid", but no one would have considered calling them that until "hybrid" became a buzzword that needed to be applied to anything and everything it could. Of course for that matter, no one calls diesel and nuclear submarines hybrids either, even though they actually do have multiple independent systems directly providing motive force.
It converts stored energy into electrical energy. Any details beyond that are irrelevant, as it is not providing mechanical energy to move the vehicle.
2-stroke engines are "unfriendly" because they use positive pressure from the piston to pump the charge into the cylinder. That means you have charge in your crank case, which in turn means you need oil mixed in with your charge, and that oil gets exhausted as unburned soot. Add a blower to pump the charge into the cylinder, independent of the motion of the piston, and your emissions issues vanish.
A typical automobile is a very different application, but still one that benefits considerably from an electric transmission with buffer. There are times when an automobile warrants a couple hundred horsepower, such as acceleration up an inclined highway on-ramp. An underpowered vehicle is a safety concern, as it will not yet be up to speed when it comes time to merge. On the other hand, an automobile will typically only be using a few tens of horsepower or less, meaning a large, unused ICE constitutes a whole lot of unnecessary weight and inefficiency.
A small ICE on the order of 30HP, combined with a modest MJ of storage and a 200HP traction motor will be lighter, more efficient, and more reliable than the traditional 200HP ICE and variable transmission, and will even offer better performance due to the torque characteristics of an electric motor.
If you take an electric car and stick a second type of battery on it, it's still just an electric car. There's no reason to lump everything into the buzzword that is "hybrid".
That would need to be a fairly large grave. The CEP of an uncontrolled falling body is pretty high. I suppose you could fit weights on their shoulders and fins on their legs.
but the costs of capital punishment as they curently exist are so high
The costs are so high because the finality of the sentence results in the case cycling around appeals courts for many years. If the convict willingly chooses the death penalty, this won't be an issue, and the costs will be low.
Nope, not the previous lethal cocktail anymore. We mostly get those chemicals from other countries--and other countries decided to ban selling them to us, because we use them in executions.
I've heard this before, but I just don't understand it. Doing so would present a void in the market, and voids get filled by new companies springing up to fulfill the supply. If there's a reason for anyone to be using it, surely there would be enough usage in a country of ~350M people to warrant the capital expenditure of a chemical plant.
Slashdot Mirror
You would have to filter out all the CO2, since that would contain a percentage of radioactive Carbon-14, but then that would suffocate the plants.
Irradiated food behaves the same. It's like canning, but you don't have to boil it.
Radiation is still a great additive. You can seal and sterilize things just like canning, but without having to boil it. Now radioisotopes.. those aren't such great additives....
The credentials are available. All you have to do is write your own CDM to request them. Add a layer in the middle to relay the authentication between the browser and the true CDM. Once validation is performed, the data passed between the two would be unencrypted, as trying to encrypt and then decrypt the video every step of the way would bring any computer to its knees.
Suppose the CDM actually emits encrypted HDMI data - most monitors today can take HDMI input.
Applications cannot emit "encrypted HDMI data". They output graphics, which the graphics card composites with other graphics, and then outputs over HDMI. That violates any ability to sandbox the application. That also requires the application have custom code to support each architecture on each operating system you intend to be usable on. It also requires the graphics card be able to accept encrypted graphics from the data, to protect it from the browser. All of this could be avoided by simply ditching DRM and letting the browser handle things.
How are you going to check the binary if you've explicitly isolated the CDM from any access to the system? Either you allow the CDM direct access to the OS so it can perform the check on its own, or you can provide an interface that can be trivially spoofed. If the CDM access the OS directly, aside from the security implications that causes, now your open source OS can attack it in the same exact manner, returning whatever information the CDM wants to see, rather than the reality.
The simple truth is that you cannot have open source anything anywhere within the code chain from the point the content exits the CDM to the point the content is sent along with wire to your display device. If you are breached anywhere, then your system is insecure, and if your system is insecure, your content will be stolen and freely distributed on the internet. All you've prevented with all this DRM is the typical honest customer from being able to flexibly access the content in the manner they chose. The typical honest customer needs to be taught this, that DRM has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and everything to do with artificially restricting their abilities. Education is the key to fighting all forms of oppression.
That's easy. You just have to run it at very high temperatures.
Thunderbolt is how you have docking stations that don't suck ass like ever one that came before.
Well... it's how you have worthwhile generic docking stations that don't require a huge proprietary breakout connector on the bottom of the laptop.
Wrong side of that little island down there called Australia...
It easily has the range to reach this spot
Sure. Their fuel load was about 4000km shy of reaching the Kermadec Trench, but they could have easily made that up by playing some Queen over the PA system.
Wrong side of that little island down there called Australia...
If they have to increase costs to cover refurbishment and reuse, then the solution is to simply not do it. The only reason to have reusable spacecraft is because it is cheaper.
The Space Shuttle more often than not landed right back at the Cape, just a few miles from where it launched.
No one ever intended for the Falcon first stage to land at sea. These are test flights. They are testing the ability of the craft and autopilot system to slow to a stop, and then slowly descend to the ground. Being test flights, they are uncertain of the results, and if they fuck up, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to crash in the ocean than crash anywhere near your launch pad. Flying east from the Cape, there is no option but to perform a direct abort and fly back where you came from. Flying south out of Vandenberg, they may find it better to set up a landing site a few hundred miles down the coast, and ship it back to the launch site on a barge.
The expected failure rate was 1 in 75, so they were actually pretty close.
Actually, that's not true. It's damn tough to get your fuel fraction up to 98%, and even 95% is considered excellent. Rockets use staging to "fake" this ratio, and produce a higher effective fuel fraction than what is actually present.
The fuel cost of a (liquid) rocket is chump change. It's typically less than a single percent of the total launch cost. The vast majority of the cost is in the vehicle and rocket motors, so even if you have to bring twice as much fuel, as well as a more powerful (more expensive) first stage, it's completely worth it even if you only reuse the stage once. Where NASA got into trouble is that the Orbiter basically had to be rebuilt after each flight, eating up any potential gains in economy, plus considerably more.
Tons of engines are designed for reuse. Pretty much any in-orbit engine must be, by definition, reusable. The difference is that we're talking high performance launch engines, rather than the low performance, orbital maneuvering engines. The X37B does not have a launch engine, it has a hypergolic maneuvering engine.
Depending on location, the Tesla and Leaf will be powered by coal, diesel fuel, methane, water, steam, wind, sunlight, or uranium. Just because the power comes from the grid does not make it any more homogeneous than a vehicle with an onboard generator.
From the other direction, diesel-electric submarines have been diesel-electric submarines for decades, and could run their electrical systems and charge their batteries off shore power when docked. That's identical to a "plug-in mild hybrid", but no one would have considered calling them that until "hybrid" became a buzzword that needed to be applied to anything and everything it could. Of course for that matter, no one calls diesel and nuclear submarines hybrids either, even though they actually do have multiple independent systems directly providing motive force.
It converts stored energy into electrical energy. Any details beyond that are irrelevant, as it is not providing mechanical energy to move the vehicle.
2-stroke engines are "unfriendly" because they use positive pressure from the piston to pump the charge into the cylinder. That means you have charge in your crank case, which in turn means you need oil mixed in with your charge, and that oil gets exhausted as unburned soot. Add a blower to pump the charge into the cylinder, independent of the motion of the piston, and your emissions issues vanish.
Probably the cable that controls the waste gate.
Even areas that still have minimum posted speed limits, they're usually 20-30mph below the maximum.
A typical automobile is a very different application, but still one that benefits considerably from an electric transmission with buffer. There are times when an automobile warrants a couple hundred horsepower, such as acceleration up an inclined highway on-ramp. An underpowered vehicle is a safety concern, as it will not yet be up to speed when it comes time to merge. On the other hand, an automobile will typically only be using a few tens of horsepower or less, meaning a large, unused ICE constitutes a whole lot of unnecessary weight and inefficiency.
A small ICE on the order of 30HP, combined with a modest MJ of storage and a 200HP traction motor will be lighter, more efficient, and more reliable than the traditional 200HP ICE and variable transmission, and will even offer better performance due to the torque characteristics of an electric motor.
If you take an electric car and stick a second type of battery on it, it's still just an electric car. There's no reason to lump everything into the buzzword that is "hybrid".
What about an island off the Hudson River? We could demolish the bridges, flood the tunnels, and mine the harbor.
That would need to be a fairly large grave. The CEP of an uncontrolled falling body is pretty high. I suppose you could fit weights on their shoulders and fins on their legs.
but the costs of capital punishment as they curently exist are so high
The costs are so high because the finality of the sentence results in the case cycling around appeals courts for many years. If the convict willingly chooses the death penalty, this won't be an issue, and the costs will be low.
Nope, not the previous lethal cocktail anymore. We mostly get those chemicals from other countries--and other countries decided to ban selling them to us, because we use them in executions.
I've heard this before, but I just don't understand it. Doing so would present a void in the market, and voids get filled by new companies springing up to fulfill the supply. If there's a reason for anyone to be using it, surely there would be enough usage in a country of ~350M people to warrant the capital expenditure of a chemical plant.