An American rights group is suing the police in Pennsylvania for issuing tickets, which carry a jail sentence, to people for swearing.
...
One lawsuit involves an unidentified woman in Luzerne County in northeast Pennsylvania who was given a citation which carries a maximum penalty of $300 and 90 days in jail after she yelled an offensive word at a motorcyclist who swerved close to her in October 2008.
I think I speak for most people when I say: Fuck that.
That’s why I’m asking, and quit ducking the question.
The foodservice staff brought the food in, noticed people praying for the food, and said hey stop that, this food was purchased partly by the government and you can’t pray because it would violate separation of church and state, which might cause us to lose our federal funding.
And you have faith. A belief in reason. Except that your so-called “reason” is not, and you’re too blinded by your faith to see that.
And who tried to pigeon hole who?
I was thinking of sznupi – it seems I’ve gotten the two of you confused. I apologise.
However you did say: “Seeing that you believe in the bible (selectively) and don't believe in evolution I question that you now fact from fancy.”
Because I have a religious faith (which you accuse me of being inconsistent in, with no evidence), and because I don’t share your religious belief in the power of Natural Selection... you conclude that my opinions on everything are suspect? We have a name for that sort of argument...
Pretty sure it was you who lost the argument, seeing as you are the one who thought that Christians are not allowed to pray in public when the food was paid for with government assistance.
Oh, and constantly trying to pigeon-hole me with your assumptions of what Christians are like? Yeah, that didn’t work so well either.
If I lived next door to you I think I’d make a point of praying on the sidewalk in front of your house just to piss you off. Guess what? IT’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH. Fuck you if you think otherwise, because you’re wrong and that’s all there is to it.
I got the directions of the friction and braking arrows mixed up on the upper-left hand diagram. For some reason I was thinking that the brakes were a backward force. It’s actually the car’s momentum as a forward force, and friction as a backward force.
You miss the point. The entire function of the ABS is to momentarily disengage the brakes to prevent a skid. The ABS sends a signal saying “we’re about to skid! release the brakes!” Now, yes, if the ABS fails, it fails safe... normally. If the ABS or its sensors can be hacked, however, you might be able to lock the system into a constant state of “we’re about to skid! release the brakes!”, preventing braking altogether.
In any case, the function of ABS is to reduce braking power, not increase it. The reason for this is complex and requires basic knowledge of physics, at least with regards to static and kinetic friction. In a nutshell: braking hard is good, but braking too hard is very, very bad. The ABS prevents you from braking “too hard” – by releasing the brakes if you try!
Recall that I said it involves two kinds of friction: static and kinetic. Static friction is between two points that are not moving relative to each other. Because your tire is turning at the same rate as its movement across the pavement, a point on the outside of your tire is not moving relative to the road while it is in contact with the road. I.e., if you are not skidding, static friction applies. Static friction (while the wheels are in solid contact with the pavement and are not sliding) is much stronger than kinetic friction (which applies the instant the wheels being to slide).
You have a maximum force, Fmax, which is the product of the vehicle’s weight and a coefficient (multiplier) of static friction (which depends on both the surface material of the road and the condition of the tread on the tires). When you apply the brakes (or accelerate, for that matter), a shear (skid) force is applied at the point of contact between the rubber and the road. This force can be up to, but not over Fmax – that is the maximum force that your tires can withstand while still gripping the road’s surface. The force of you braking is met by the equal-and-opposite force between the tires and the road, all the way up to Fmax.
As soon as the shear force between the tires and the road surpasses the Fmax that the tires can withstand, the force of you braking overcomes the ability of the tires to provide an equal-and-opposite force to keep you from skidding. Because there are no longer equal-and-opposite forces, you are skidding and enter what is called kinetic friction. In kinetic friction, your vehicle’s weight is multiplied by a different (and much lower) coefficient of friction (multiplier) – the coefficient of kinetic friction, giving you the force of the kinetic friction. This force is subtracted from the force of your velocity (the force of you braking is fully irrelevant at this point, as your wheels are locked and your brakes are locked), slowing you only ever so slightly.
In other words, it takes you much longer to stop under kinetic friction (wheels locked, skidding) than it does under static friction while braking at just below Fmax. The purpose of the ABS is to prevent you from braking any harder than Fmax... by releasing the brakes if it detects an impending skid.
In fact, however, you can actually stop faster if you do not have an ABS, or if it is disabled, as long as you keep your braking force just under Fmax (i.e. you don’t skid). The ABS has a fairly large safety zone built-in; it will disengage your brakes (causing the pulsating or vibrating feel in the pedal) at lower braking forces than you could actually safely apply, which lowers your braking ability in that situation. Because you are able to tell better than the computer whether or not you are about to skid, you can actually stop better without the ABS t
I find that things are generally funnier if they contain a kernel of truth... so you were off to a rather poor start when you said “if I could physically mount your wife”.
...and the service he wants to provide is expressly described as not just pulling codes for people who are too stingy to have the work done there as well. It’s his subtle way of saying “go somewhere else”. Oh wait... he wasn’t even that subtle about it:
If you want your code read for free, go to an Autozone
He’ll dick around with your car’s computer for you, but he doesn’t want to. In fact, he really only wants to do it as necessary to actually fix the vehicle, which if you don’t want him to fix, he doesn’t want to dick with.
Sophisticated programming abilities my ass... because nobody these days can afford a laptop...
Well, yeah... I agree. Only one person really has to do the hard work and then distribute it around in all the right circles such that a rather difficult hack is really just a matter of connecting the right computer to the car.
The key to their concern, though, was the wireless systems that are being introduced. OnStar, wi-fi hotspots, GPS receivers that also download current traffic updates, etc... if the car companies are designing those as insecurely as they designed the systems that these guys reprogrammed, then there is legitimate cause for concern. However I’d certainly hope they’d design the wireless systems to be more secure than a port that required physical access.
That’s because they added an electronically-activated physical override for the manual override to keep you from manually opening the drive while the CD is being written and possibly exposing yourself to dangerously high levels of laser radiation!
Yeah, I’ve had drives that wouldn’t open before... I think shutting the whole thing down and rebooting reset it.
Then it’s a good thing that they’ve already thought of that, I guess.
He and co-researcher Tadayoshi Kohno of the University of Washington, describe the real-world risk of any of the attacks they've worked out as extremely low. An attacker would have to have sophisticated programming abilities and also be able to physically mount some sort of computer on the victim's car to gain access to the embedded systems. But as they look at all of the wireless and Internet-enabled systems the auto industry is dreaming up for tomorrow's cars, they see some serious areas for concern.
Since what you say is false there is not much to argue about. What you present as fact is not fact. I guess your “faith” predicates that. It is pointless arguing with a closed mind. I’ll give up.
LOL, of course it’s ridiculous. It was intentionally so, but no more ridiculous than any other simulation when you’re simulating things you have little understanding of!
All of the so-called evolutionary, or hill-climbing, algorithms require two parts: a randomizer, which introduces the random changes; secondly, a fit checker, which determines whether or not the result is more “fit” and either kills its result tree or promotes it. This fit-check is very unnatural but is considered to be analogous to natural selection, though absolutely no justification for this sort of analogy exists. Natural selection is evolution’s magic pill.
At 0.433 psi per foot of water, assuming it’s a constant, 16,000 feet of head is only about 6,925 psi.
If we assume that the ocean floor has about the density of granite (2.7x that of water), then it’s about 5,000 x 0.433 + 11,000 x 0.433 x 2.7, or about 15,025 psi.
Either way it’s nowhere close to the 13,000 psi that you got, although 15,000 psi sounds more like it might be the correct figure and the article was just off by a factor of 10.
Meh. I won’t be worried about that until verse 7 happens...
The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.
Slashdot Mirror
An American rights group is suing the police in Pennsylvania for issuing tickets, which carry a jail sentence, to people for swearing.
...
One lawsuit involves an unidentified woman in Luzerne County in northeast Pennsylvania who was given a citation which carries a maximum penalty of $300 and 90 days in jail after she yelled an offensive word at a motorcyclist who swerved close to her in October 2008.
I think I speak for most people when I say: Fuck that.
That’s why I’m asking, and quit ducking the question.
The foodservice staff brought the food in, noticed people praying for the food, and said hey stop that, this food was purchased partly by the government and you can’t pray because it would violate separation of church and state, which might cause us to lose our federal funding.
So... do you agree with that decision?
And you have faith. A belief in reason. Except that your so-called “reason” is not, and you’re too blinded by your faith to see that.
And who tried to pigeon hole who?
I was thinking of sznupi – it seems I’ve gotten the two of you confused. I apologise.
However you did say: “Seeing that you believe in the bible (selectively) and don't believe in evolution I question that you now fact from fancy.”
Because I have a religious faith (which you accuse me of being inconsistent in, with no evidence), and because I don’t share your religious belief in the power of Natural Selection... you conclude that my opinions on everything are suspect? We have a name for that sort of argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Are you a republican by any chance?
Wait... now you are trying to pigeonhole me? Is this your way of retaliating for when you imagined that I tried to pigeonhole you?
Pretty sure it was you who lost the argument, seeing as you are the one who thought that Christians are not allowed to pray in public when the food was paid for with government assistance.
Oh, and constantly trying to pigeon-hole me with your assumptions of what Christians are like? Yeah, that didn’t work so well either.
LOL.
Okay, which speech is protected Muslim or Christian?
Both, moron.
Oh, did you think that straw man you built represented me? I’m sorry.
Trouble is y'see, I'm not wrong.
If you think that people cannot pray, out loud, before eating a meal that was paid for partly by government assistance... yes, you are wrong.
Prayer: Talking to God.
If I lived next door to you I think I’d make a point of praying on the sidewalk in front of your house just to piss you off. Guess what? IT’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH. Fuck you if you think otherwise, because you’re wrong and that’s all there is to it.
This ENTIRE STORY is about people who were told they could not. Hence no, it is NOT a straw man.
Or perhaps you agree with me... both questions ought to be answered with a resounding “yes!”... in which case, why are we still arguing?
I got the directions of the friction and braking arrows mixed up on the upper-left hand diagram. For some reason I was thinking that the brakes were a backward force. It’s actually the car’s momentum as a forward force, and friction as a backward force.
You miss the point. The entire function of the ABS is to momentarily disengage the brakes to prevent a skid. The ABS sends a signal saying “we’re about to skid! release the brakes!” Now, yes, if the ABS fails, it fails safe... normally. If the ABS or its sensors can be hacked, however, you might be able to lock the system into a constant state of “we’re about to skid! release the brakes!”, preventing braking altogether.
In any case, the function of ABS is to reduce braking power, not increase it. The reason for this is complex and requires basic knowledge of physics, at least with regards to static and kinetic friction. In a nutshell: braking hard is good, but braking too hard is very, very bad. The ABS prevents you from braking “too hard” – by releasing the brakes if you try!
--
Basic physics to follow. (It may help to refer to this diagram. Yes, I had too much time on my hands.)
Recall that I said it involves two kinds of friction: static and kinetic. Static friction is between two points that are not moving relative to each other. Because your tire is turning at the same rate as its movement across the pavement, a point on the outside of your tire is not moving relative to the road while it is in contact with the road. I.e., if you are not skidding, static friction applies. Static friction (while the wheels are in solid contact with the pavement and are not sliding) is much stronger than kinetic friction (which applies the instant the wheels being to slide).
You have a maximum force, Fmax, which is the product of the vehicle’s weight and a coefficient (multiplier) of static friction (which depends on both the surface material of the road and the condition of the tread on the tires). When you apply the brakes (or accelerate, for that matter), a shear (skid) force is applied at the point of contact between the rubber and the road. This force can be up to, but not over Fmax – that is the maximum force that your tires can withstand while still gripping the road’s surface. The force of you braking is met by the equal-and-opposite force between the tires and the road, all the way up to Fmax.
As soon as the shear force between the tires and the road surpasses the Fmax that the tires can withstand, the force of you braking overcomes the ability of the tires to provide an equal-and-opposite force to keep you from skidding. Because there are no longer equal-and-opposite forces, you are skidding and enter what is called kinetic friction. In kinetic friction, your vehicle’s weight is multiplied by a different (and much lower) coefficient of friction (multiplier) – the coefficient of kinetic friction, giving you the force of the kinetic friction. This force is subtracted from the force of your velocity (the force of you braking is fully irrelevant at this point, as your wheels are locked and your brakes are locked), slowing you only ever so slightly.
In other words, it takes you much longer to stop under kinetic friction (wheels locked, skidding) than it does under static friction while braking at just below Fmax. The purpose of the ABS is to prevent you from braking any harder than Fmax... by releasing the brakes if it detects an impending skid.
In fact, however, you can actually stop faster if you do not have an ABS, or if it is disabled, as long as you keep your braking force just under Fmax (i.e. you don’t skid). The ABS has a fairly large safety zone built-in; it will disengage your brakes (causing the pulsating or vibrating feel in the pedal) at lower braking forces than you could actually safely apply, which lowers your braking ability in that situation. Because you are able to tell better than the computer whether or not you are about to skid, you can actually stop better without the ABS t
I find that things are generally funnier if they contain a kernel of truth... so you were off to a rather poor start when you said “if I could physically mount your wife”.
Natural selection is just Maxwell’s demon: a natural mechanism to magically beat entropy and create order from chaos.
Simulating Maxwell’s demon is easy, but that doesn’t make it real.
In hindsight I probably should’ve bolded the last sentence.
...and the service he wants to provide is expressly described as not just pulling codes for people who are too stingy to have the work done there as well. It’s his subtle way of saying “go somewhere else”. Oh wait... he wasn’t even that subtle about it:
If you want your code read for free, go to an Autozone
He’ll dick around with your car’s computer for you, but he doesn’t want to. In fact, he really only wants to do it as necessary to actually fix the vehicle, which if you don’t want him to fix, he doesn’t want to dick with.
Sophisticated programming abilities my ass ... because nobody these days can afford a laptop ...
Well, yeah... I agree. Only one person really has to do the hard work and then distribute it around in all the right circles such that a rather difficult hack is really just a matter of connecting the right computer to the car.
The key to their concern, though, was the wireless systems that are being introduced. OnStar, wi-fi hotspots, GPS receivers that also download current traffic updates, etc... if the car companies are designing those as insecurely as they designed the systems that these guys reprogrammed, then there is legitimate cause for concern. However I’d certainly hope they’d design the wireless systems to be more secure than a port that required physical access.
That’s because they added an electronically-activated physical override for the manual override to keep you from manually opening the drive while the CD is being written and possibly exposing yourself to dangerously high levels of laser radiation!
Yeah, I’ve had drives that wouldn’t open before... I think shutting the whole thing down and rebooting reset it.
Actually, I suspect Bernoulli's principle would keep you pretty dry so long as the hole was fairly small and not on a forward-facing location.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=toyota+sticking+accelerator&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Well, if you want to exit your vehicle while it’s moving at 95 MPH be my guest...
Then it’s a good thing that they’ve already thought of that, I guess.
He and co-researcher Tadayoshi Kohno of the University of Washington, describe the real-world risk of any of the attacks they've worked out as extremely low. An attacker would have to have sophisticated programming abilities and also be able to physically mount some sort of computer on the victim's car to gain access to the embedded systems. But as they look at all of the wireless and Internet-enabled systems the auto industry is dreaming up for tomorrow's cars, they see some serious areas for concern.
Since what you say is false there is not much to argue about. What you present as fact is not fact. I guess your “faith” predicates that. It is pointless arguing with a closed mind. I’ll give up.
Quit avoiding my questions.
Are people allowed to talk while they eat?
Are Christians allowed to talk to God while they eat?
Answer both questions please.
That was not a “straw man”, it was a proposal of the WAY IT (perhaps) SHOULD BE DONE. Did you concur, or did you think it was silly?
You thought it was silly and absurd?
Oh, so just the CHRISTIANS are not allowed to talk while the eat IF THEY ARE TALKING TO GOD?
LOL, of course it’s ridiculous. It was intentionally so, but no more ridiculous than any other simulation when you’re simulating things you have little understanding of!
All of the so-called evolutionary, or hill-climbing, algorithms require two parts: a randomizer, which introduces the random changes; secondly, a fit checker, which determines whether or not the result is more “fit” and either kills its result tree or promotes it. This fit-check is very unnatural but is considered to be analogous to natural selection, though absolutely no justification for this sort of analogy exists. Natural selection is evolution’s magic pill.
You still have to explain how those people can be such hypocrites...
How about we ask them to defend their own hypocrisy, m’kay?
Care to explain how you got those numbers?
At 0.433 psi per foot of water, assuming it’s a constant, 16,000 feet of head is only about 6,925 psi.
If we assume that the ocean floor has about the density of granite (2.7x that of water), then it’s about 5,000 x 0.433 + 11,000 x 0.433 x 2.7, or about 15,025 psi.
Either way it’s nowhere close to the 13,000 psi that you got, although 15,000 psi sounds more like it might be the correct figure and the article was just off by a factor of 10.
Meh. I won’t be worried about that until verse 7 happens...
The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.