"Banks and other organizations should simply treat the string of characters that is your SSN as if it were another part of your name."
No, they don't. Ever looked at a credit card, or line of credit application recently? They treat it as the password when accompanied by a name and date of birth.
And that is the whole reason why it's dangerous if other people know your SSN, because some bank you never did business with assumes it's your password.
Tell that to the banks and lenders, because that is where the problem lies. They see simple knowing the SSN and other trivialities as a proof of identity.
What 'the SSN' needs is a 'cryptographic challenge system' where you kan keep your real SSN fully private, and can hand out numbers that prove your identity to people who wish to verify who you are, and that at the same time prevents the use of that number that you gave out to prove identity to a third party.
Asymmetrical cryptographic algorithms such as RSA allow that, and a simple calculator-type device and/or smartcard allows people to do the above safely and securely, to the point where you need to be personally robbed of your smartcard and pin number and/or password before you have any risk of having your identity stolen.
If such a system were used instead of plain SSNs, the stolen choicepoint data would only be bad because of the detailed and verifyable information about the victims in the data, but the data would be useless for impersonating the victims for anything such as getting loans/mortgages.
It's an extreme measure, but it's a widespread problem as well: Maybe it is time for liability with regard with such sensitive data and/or simple outlawing many of the current common uses of 'the SSN' as an incentive to the industry to embrace a system where the people don't have to worry about others impersonating them into financial ruins.
The answer is yes, because you put the info out there.
I'll give a more adequate analogy: If you hold the baby over the railing of a balcony, you are responsible if the baby falls.
Why? Because the baby was defenseless against your actions and you put it in a dangerous place. Plus, you are the guardian of the baby.
Sensitive, identifying, and personal information is defenseless against people putting it in dangerous places where that information can be taken and abused. You are the guardian of the information.
I can think of a reason: The larger the institution, the larger the orders. IT departments prefer the exact same hardware for all machines in an order, to make maintenance and support easier. Dell can sell the leftovers to the smaller and single purchasers.
Hence, larger companies pay more because they demand more.
If anything is capable of looking beyond the nose into the depths of the Universe, it is Hubble.
Now, truth of the matter is that they are going to do the 20+ shuttle flights to finish the space station, whose science results have pretty much been limited to 'hey some moss grows in circles in space', and explaining to highschool kids how astronauts live out there. doing valuable circular-growing moss research and all.
But the risk and cost of single flight to keep Hubble operative is too high, and the 20+ for the space station are worth the cost and risk?
Right. I'm not convinced.
This is not about Mars, or the Moon. Mars and the Moon are just decoys. They are only mentioned to make people drool like you are doing.
Most likely, NASA will never get sufficient funding (and balls) to actually go do it. If it's too risky and too expensive to go fix something in orbit, that has been specifically designed to be fixed, then please tell me, how can flying people to the moon and another planet be affordable and safe?
Too bad? It just means that you can use one of these disks as an accelerator for your harddisks.
Just rememember that most data on most disks isn't replaced daily, so a nightly backup suddenly also serves as a disk speed booster for the next day, for any data that didn't change during that day.
In fact, if seek times are similar to the harddisks, then why keep the data on the harddisks at all? If the player+media is cheaper than a 1TB harddisk, it can be a cost saving in addition to a speed boost.
Great potential.
This can lead to some very interesting/challenging projects for people who like to design filesystems.
How do you know the margin of error? I've seen systems/measurements where 50% difference is a statistical error, and systems where it needs to be less than 0.2% to be a statistical error.
Pragmatism and statistics are _not_ a good mix.
Note that, for example, many hosting providers host hundreds of web sites per system. Adding a couple of percent in performance then adds a couple of percent to the bottom line of the cost picture for those companies. The same is true for supercomputer clusters used by many companies and universities with hundreds of nodes.
Even though 1-2% sounds like 'next to nothing', but that's not how you should look at it. If you ignore 2% only five times, you've really already ignored 10.5%...
There is a dutch saying that, when translated in english is like this: "If you don't honour the small things, you're not worth the big ones".
No. H264/MPEG4-AVC does not use the DCT transform. Plus: Even just H264 I-frames have been shown to equal, and in some cases surpass the quality/bitrate of JPEG2000.
You might argue that IE isn't "good enough" but for the vast majority of people, it is. At least as far as they're concerned.
Translation: You might argue B is false, but I say B is true.
I say for the vast majority of people, IE actually is not good enough.
Actually, you say that too, one paragraph below... "goes [] toward making [it] almost good enough". almost is only almost, toward almost is not even almost, and sp2 is not installed by a lot of people.
The reasons why ie is not good enough include, but are not limited to popups, spyware, and tabbed browsing. I've seen it many times already even with nontechnical people. Making the switch is easy for almost everybody.
They won't budge more than a few percentage points.
For 2) and 3), using a Hidden Markov Model and doing a viterbi search instead of trying to do direct classification of the meaning will pretty much deal with those problems. I'm sure the other problems can be dealt with too.
Not to say it wouldn't be a big achievement to build a practical system with everything incorporated into it, but IMHO the technologies already exist.
"they can personally save the universe by not using toilet paper"
Thanks to the Japanese, that actually already has been a real possibility for a while. You won't (barely) need paper anymore, it's much more comfortable than wiping, and, for/., it's high-tech: Available from around $700.
I took a test like that in a class once. It was a boring class, made obligatory to engineering students by a questionable national law. It was introductory psychology or something like that. The class was not considered difficult by anybody, neither was the test, but it was extremely boring. It was a multiple-choice test, and I looked at some of the previous tests given for that class (they were available from the teachers themselves (...), with answers). I found a pattern in the questions and answers. I constructed a logical decision rule of around 5 steps that could be applied by quickly scanning the type of question and the list of answer. It did not require thinking about the question to find the correct answer. It was a combined rule like 'largest answer (most text/space), except if answer x exists, then y, unless the question includes a q-type language construct, then z' type of rule. I took the test, and I stuck to my rules, and was left with less than 10% of the questions that were not covered by the rules, so I had to 'reason' the answers for those. Sufficent to say, I did not read the book, I did not go to the lectures, I spent an afternoon building the 'answer decision rules', but I passed the class with a very good grade.
I probably did not learn the intended lesson though...
"Basically the idea is to figure out a way to quickly (say in 5 seconds) look at a complex formula or math problem and estimate the answer so you get close enough to pick the right one out of 5 choices."
That is closer to practical engineering than to math. That way, you're not doing math. You're not finding the exact solution to the math problem, but you're taking an educated guess, an approximated one at that. If that is what they teach children, no wonder they are bad at math, they are not learning math! Students won't know for sure if they got the right result until the test is graded. If you knew and did the actual math, you would know when you could not solve a particular problem, and if you had enough time and patience, you could verify your own answers for errors.
In a real math test, the question the student has afterwards is not which answers he got correct, but how much influence it will have on his grade that he got questions x,y, and z wrong.
When you ask 'which made better use of the money', you're really expecting the answer to the question 'which school made more money', but that is the wrong question. Do you think the school gets money to spend it on entertainment, or to spend it on teaching kids?
The right question is 'which school taught more knowledge'. School B was more effective with the money, because the kids in school A didn't learn from the arena. The school should be in the business of teaching kids, not producing sports events.
When school A built the arena, the local entertainment mogul canceled his arena plans. Being unrestricted by the typical school-problematics, and completely entertainment and profit-focused, his arena would have been more financially succesful than the school's arena, adding more to the local economy than the school-operated arena.
School A, in building the arena, took a business opportunity away from the local economy, resulting in lower profits, a smaller tax base. They did not do the local town a favor. MacroEconomics 101.
From a business perspective, for the economy, the arena should still be built, but not by the schools. The arena's profits will find its way to the schools by the way of taxes and a larger local economy due to the more effective arena management and operations (there are many things an arena can do to make extra money that they can't/wont do when they are school owned/operated).
Schools must focus on their core business: teaching. The arena is a distraction and causes the school to lose focus. THAT is the whole problem with the system right now.
The _schools_ have ADD. No wonder why it seems it's becoming an epidemic for kids.
They spend less USD/kid, not because they are actually doing less for the kids, but because hiring people and paying the school's rent is cheaper in many (all?) of those countries.
When corrected for 'cost of operating a school', I'm sure the spending differences will get a lot smaller or disappear for many of the well performing countries.
Besides lower wages and rents, there are other things that make a difference. For example, in many countries, it is not necessary for a school to have a fleet of yellow buses to haul the kids around, and when you look at a school's budget, you'll see why that matters a lot. The money spent on yellow school busses are not spent on the kids, but on the parents and all of the school's neighbours ('necessity' due to distance and the level of public safety).
Want big yards and houses and open spaces around? Pay for the buses.
Are you serious? Teachers saying arithmetic is not a large part of math, and strategy is? And then using that as a reason to discourage kids to advance their math skills?
Sure, there are many 'parts' of math (with varying levels of being pure math, or applied math): calculus, algebra, linear analysis, logic, probability, numerical analysis, discrete math, geometry, etc.
But strategy? No.
Math is exact. Math can be fully proven to be correct without the need to actually make observations. Math is about truth, not about perception. A strategy is "an elaborate and systematic plan of action" (wordnet). To prove that a strategy is correct, you need to observe the result after implementing the plan of action. Ergo, strategy can be science, but it is not math.
What are those teachers smoking?
But, umm, it looks like you'll have to do it yourself if you want to stimulate your kid's obvious interest in math. Browsing around just a bit, I found places like mathforum.org. Maybe those can help?
Re:Strategic offshoring
on
Offshoring IT
·
· Score: 1
Both US offshore outsourcing and IT development in India are going through a boom. It will take a year or two/three for the bomb to fall. Then reality will set in on both ends of the ocean.
Outsourcing stories form the US, and IT stories from India have so much in similar to the stories during the recent IT boom in the US. It's not a coincidence. CEO's/CFO's, investors and the media are generally fast to forget history, therefore it will repeat itself.
Re:Outsourcing made simple
on
Offshoring IT
·
· Score: 1
"it is simply receiving services in exchange for green pieces of paper,"
Which makes it trade: Foreign services in exchange for the value of the USD on international currency exchanges. Followed that recently?
"there's not much parents can do to protect their kids from watching broadcast TV."
Just like how there is not much they can do to protect their kids from getting hit by a car. Except by keeping them away from he road
As in: Except by keeping them away from he TV set
The sensoring as it is done is totally ineffective: Do you think your kid is protected if on a TV show, a person is killed in cold blood, and the killer says 'you got what you deserved, mothe....r!' instead of the unsencoded 'motherfucker'? Do you think the scene now is presented well to your innocent 6-12 year old, and that he/she won't know which word it is that is bleeped/silenced-out? If you do, you're insulting the intelligence of your kid(s).
And what about the effect on your kids of the Viagra ads, Genital Herpes medicine ads, and the 'You can get a loan too, even if you're absolutely broke' shouting mortgage/auto ads? What kind of social responsibility signals does that give to your kids?
About your superbowl comment: The more you shield your kids from reality, the more likely it will be that when college time comes, your kid will be stone drunk during spring break shouting 'show me your tits', or granting on the other end of the request. Why? Because to kids, taboo's are exciting and they are naturally drawn to them. In countries where kids are raised with less titty and alcohol taboos, you just don't see the rampant bad behaviour of spring break students in the US.
Wooley-one made the most important comment, but I'll add to that that in hurricanes, roofs don't collapse, but they get torn off or blown off. They get torn off by the wind sucking from above (starts with shingles/tiles beling peeled off, and if there is a weak corner, that's where the 'tin can' is opened). Roofs also can get blown off when the wind gets in the house (through a broken window/garage door).
The only damage a concrete roof gets in a hurricane (besides possible flooding and water leaking through cracks), is it being pelted by debree.
For lightning, I've never heard of a concrete building explode because of lightning. But I have heard of lightning striking people _through_ closed windows and curtains, and I think a concrete building gives a little better electrical isolation than soaked cardboard.
I don't want to encourage you to break the speed limit or doing anything dangerous, so just imagine finding a road with a 75MPH speed limit. Imagine driving 74MPH on it, when it rains, and then imagine sticking your head out of the window. That is the _average_ wind between wind-gusts of a strong tropical storm that is still too weak to even be a category one hurricane. And then remember that wind force on a surface increases squared with wind speed.
Slashdot Mirror
"Banks and other organizations should simply treat the string of characters that is your SSN as if it were another part of your name."
No, they don't. Ever looked at a credit card, or line of credit application recently? They treat it as the password when accompanied by a name and date of birth.
And that is the whole reason why it's dangerous if other people know your SSN, because some bank you never did business with assumes it's your password.
Tell that to the banks and lenders, because that is where the problem lies. They see simple knowing the SSN and other trivialities as a proof of identity.
What 'the SSN' needs is a 'cryptographic challenge system' where you kan keep your real SSN fully private, and can hand out numbers that prove your identity to people who wish to verify who you are, and that at the same time prevents the use of that number that you gave out to prove identity to a third party.
Asymmetrical cryptographic algorithms such as RSA allow that, and a simple calculator-type device and/or smartcard allows people to do the above safely and securely, to the point where you need to be personally robbed of your smartcard and pin number and/or password before you have any risk of having your identity stolen.
If such a system were used instead of plain SSNs, the stolen choicepoint data would only be bad because of the detailed and verifyable information about the victims in the data, but the data would be useless for impersonating the victims for anything such as getting loans/mortgages.
It's an extreme measure, but it's a widespread problem as well: Maybe it is time for liability with regard with such sensitive data and/or simple outlawing many of the current common uses of 'the SSN' as an incentive to the industry to embrace a system where the people don't have to worry about others impersonating them into financial ruins.
The answer is yes, because you put the info out there.
I'll give a more adequate analogy: If you hold the baby over the railing of a balcony, you are responsible if the baby falls.
Why? Because the baby was defenseless against your actions and you put it in a dangerous place. Plus, you are the guardian of the baby.
Sensitive, identifying, and personal information is defenseless against people putting it in dangerous places where that information can be taken and abused. You are the guardian of the information.
I can think of a reason: The larger the institution, the larger the orders. IT departments prefer the exact same hardware for all machines in an order, to make maintenance and support easier. Dell can sell the leftovers to the smaller and single purchasers.
Hence, larger companies pay more because they demand more.
If anything is capable of looking beyond the nose into the depths of the Universe, it is Hubble.
Now, truth of the matter is that they are going to do the 20+ shuttle flights to finish the space station, whose science results have pretty much been limited to 'hey some moss grows in circles in space', and explaining to highschool kids how astronauts live out there. doing valuable circular-growing moss research and all.
But the risk and cost of single flight to keep Hubble operative is too high, and the 20+ for the space station are worth the cost and risk?
Right. I'm not convinced.
This is not about Mars, or the Moon. Mars and the Moon are just decoys. They are only mentioned to make people drool like you are doing.
Most likely, NASA will never get sufficient funding (and balls) to actually go do it. If it's too risky and too expensive to go fix something in orbit, that has been specifically designed to be fixed, then please tell me, how can flying people to the moon and another planet be affordable and safe?
Double standards, that's the only way.
Too bad? It just means that you can use one of these disks as an accelerator for your harddisks.
Just rememember that most data on most disks isn't replaced daily, so a nightly backup suddenly also serves as a disk speed booster for the next day, for any data that didn't change during that day.
In fact, if seek times are similar to the harddisks, then why keep the data on the harddisks at all? If the player+media is cheaper than a 1TB harddisk, it can be a cost saving in addition to a speed boost.
Great potential.
This can lead to some very interesting/challenging projects for people who like to design filesystems.
How do you know the margin of error? I've seen systems/measurements where 50% difference is a statistical error, and systems where it needs to be less than 0.2% to be a statistical error.
Pragmatism and statistics are _not_ a good mix.
Note that, for example, many hosting providers host hundreds of web sites per system. Adding a couple of percent in performance then adds a couple of percent to the bottom line of the cost picture for those companies. The same is true for supercomputer clusters used by many companies and universities with hundreds of nodes.
Even though 1-2% sounds like 'next to nothing', but that's not how you should look at it. If you ignore 2% only five times, you've really already ignored 10.5%...
There is a dutch saying that, when translated in english is like this: "If you don't honour the small things, you're not worth the big ones".
"Are all codecs from the shootout based on DCT?"
No. H264/MPEG4-AVC does not use the DCT transform. Plus: Even just H264 I-frames have been shown to equal, and in some cases surpass the quality/bitrate of JPEG2000.
You might argue that IE isn't "good enough" but for the vast majority of people, it is. At least as far as they're concerned.
;-)
Translation: You might argue B is false, but I say B is true.
I say for the vast majority of people, IE actually is not good enough.
Actually, you say that too, one paragraph below... "goes [] toward making [it] almost good enough". almost is only almost, toward almost is not even almost, and sp2 is not installed by a lot of people.
The reasons why ie is not good enough include, but are not limited to popups, spyware, and tabbed browsing. I've seen it many times already even with nontechnical people. Making the switch is easy for almost everybody.
They won't budge more than a few percentage points.
Prepare to be surprised
For 2) and 3), using a Hidden Markov Model and doing a viterbi search instead of trying to do direct classification of the meaning will pretty much deal with those problems. I'm sure the other problems can be dealt with too.
Not to say it wouldn't be a big achievement to build a practical system with everything incorporated into it, but IMHO the technologies already exist.
"they can personally save the universe by not using toilet paper"
/., it's high-tech: Available from around $700.
Thanks to the Japanese, that actually already has been a real possibility for a while. You won't (barely) need paper anymore, it's much more comfortable than wiping, and, for
(No I don't work for them)
I took a test like that in a class once. It was a boring class, made obligatory to engineering students by a questionable national law. It was introductory psychology or something like that. The class was not considered difficult by anybody, neither was the test, but it was extremely boring. It was a multiple-choice test, and I looked at some of the previous tests given for that class (they were available from the teachers themselves (...), with answers). I found a pattern in the questions and answers. I constructed a logical decision rule of around 5 steps that could be applied by quickly scanning the type of question and the list of answer. It did not require thinking about the question to find the correct answer. It was a combined rule like 'largest answer (most text/space), except if answer x exists, then y, unless the question includes a q-type language construct, then z' type of rule. I took the test, and I stuck to my rules, and was left with less than 10% of the questions that were not covered by the rules, so I had to 'reason' the answers for those. Sufficent to say, I did not read the book, I did not go to the lectures, I spent an afternoon building the 'answer decision rules', but I passed the class with a very good grade.
I probably did not learn the intended lesson though...
"Basically the idea is to figure out a way to quickly (say in 5 seconds) look at a complex formula or math problem and estimate the answer so you get close enough to pick the right one out of 5 choices."
That is closer to practical engineering than to math. That way, you're not doing math. You're not finding the exact solution to the math problem, but you're taking an educated guess, an approximated one at that. If that is what they teach children, no wonder they are bad at math, they are not learning math! Students won't know for sure if they got the right result until the test is graded. If you knew and did the actual math, you would know when you could not solve a particular problem, and if you had enough time and patience, you could verify your own answers for errors.
In a real math test, the question the student has afterwards is not which answers he got correct, but how much influence it will have on his grade that he got questions x,y, and z wrong.
When you ask 'which made better use of the money', you're really expecting the answer to the question 'which school made more money', but that is the wrong question. Do you think the school gets money to spend it on entertainment, or to spend it on teaching kids?
The right question is 'which school taught more knowledge'. School B was more effective with the money, because the kids in school A didn't learn from the arena. The school should be in the business of teaching kids, not producing sports events.
When school A built the arena, the local entertainment mogul canceled his arena plans. Being unrestricted by the typical school-problematics, and completely entertainment and profit-focused, his arena would have been more financially succesful than the school's arena, adding more to the local economy than the school-operated arena.
School A, in building the arena, took a business opportunity away from the local economy, resulting in lower profits, a smaller tax base. They did not do the local town a favor. MacroEconomics 101.
From a business perspective, for the economy, the arena should still be built, but not by the schools. The arena's profits will find its way to the schools by the way of taxes and a larger local economy due to the more effective arena management and operations (there are many things an arena can do to make extra money that they can't/wont do when they are school owned/operated).
Schools must focus on their core business: teaching. The arena is a distraction and causes the school to lose focus. THAT is the whole problem with the system right now.
The _schools_ have ADD. No wonder why it seems it's becoming an epidemic for kids.
They do spend more per kid, they just get it all a lot cheaper.
Czech teachers are paid the lowest wages of teachers in Europe.
Salaries and housing in the Czech Republic are definitely less than 1/3 of US prices.
Right. If you can do both, they call you an engineer.
They spend less USD/kid, not because they are actually doing less for the kids, but because hiring people and paying the school's rent is cheaper in many (all?) of those countries.
When corrected for 'cost of operating a school', I'm sure the spending differences will get a lot smaller or disappear for many of the well performing countries.
Besides lower wages and rents, there are other things that make a difference. For example, in many countries, it is not necessary for a school to have a fleet of yellow buses to haul the kids around, and when you look at a school's budget, you'll see why that matters a lot. The money spent on yellow school busses are not spent on the kids, but on the parents and all of the school's neighbours ('necessity' due to distance and the level of public safety).
Want big yards and houses and open spaces around? Pay for the buses.
The microscopes pay for themselves in a much better way than the stadium: better educated kids for the future of everybody.
But I guess that doesn't count because that isn't green in the hands of the school _today_.
Are you serious? Teachers saying arithmetic is not a large part of math, and strategy is? And then using that as a reason to discourage kids to advance their math skills?
Sure, there are many 'parts' of math (with varying levels of being pure math, or applied math): calculus, algebra, linear analysis, logic, probability, numerical analysis, discrete math, geometry, etc.
But strategy? No.
Math is exact. Math can be fully proven to be correct without the need to actually make observations. Math is about truth, not about perception. A strategy is "an elaborate and systematic plan of action" (wordnet). To prove that a strategy is correct, you need to observe the result after implementing the plan of action. Ergo, strategy can be science, but it is not math.
What are those teachers smoking?
But, umm, it looks like you'll have to do it yourself if you want to stimulate your kid's obvious interest in math. Browsing around just a bit, I found places like mathforum.org. Maybe those can help?
Both US offshore outsourcing and IT development in India are going through a boom. It will take a year or two/three for the bomb to fall. Then reality will set in on both ends of the ocean.
Outsourcing stories form the US, and IT stories from India have so much in similar to the stories during the recent IT boom in the US. It's not a coincidence. CEO's/CFO's, investors and the media are generally fast to forget history, therefore it will repeat itself.
"it is simply receiving services in exchange for green pieces of paper,"
Which makes it trade: Foreign services in exchange for the value of the USD on international currency exchanges. Followed that recently?
Part of the 'hidden' cost of outsourcing.
Good point about the contradiction.
I always thought 'pro life' meant you had to be against guns, wars, and the death penalty.
But that too seems not the case.
"there's not much parents can do to protect their kids from watching broadcast TV."
Just like how there is not much they can do to protect their kids from getting hit by a car. Except by keeping them away from he road
As in: Except by keeping them away from he TV set
The sensoring as it is done is totally ineffective: Do you think your kid is protected if on a TV show, a person is killed in cold blood, and the killer says 'you got what you deserved, mothe....r!' instead of the unsencoded 'motherfucker'? Do you think the scene now is presented well to your innocent 6-12 year old, and that he/she won't know which word it is that is bleeped/silenced-out? If you do, you're insulting the intelligence of your kid(s).
And what about the effect on your kids of the Viagra ads, Genital Herpes medicine ads, and the 'You can get a loan too, even if you're absolutely broke' shouting mortgage/auto ads? What kind of social responsibility signals does that give to your kids?
About your superbowl comment: The more you shield your kids from reality, the more likely it will be that when college time comes, your kid will be stone drunk during spring break shouting 'show me your tits', or granting on the other end of the request. Why? Because to kids, taboo's are exciting and they are naturally drawn to them. In countries where kids are raised with less titty and alcohol taboos, you just don't see the rampant bad behaviour of spring break students in the US.
I can's see that picture in my browser, but your description sounds like how they try to anchor mobile homes. And that often wasn't enough.
Wooley-one made the most important comment, but I'll add to that that in hurricanes, roofs don't collapse, but they get torn off or blown off. They get torn off by the wind sucking from above (starts with shingles/tiles beling peeled off, and if there is a weak corner, that's where the 'tin can' is opened). Roofs also can get blown off when the wind gets in the house (through a broken window/garage door).
The only damage a concrete roof gets in a hurricane (besides possible flooding and water leaking through cracks), is it being pelted by debree.
For lightning, I've never heard of a concrete building explode because of lightning. But I have heard of lightning striking people _through_ closed windows and curtains, and I think a concrete building gives a little better electrical isolation than soaked cardboard.
I don't want to encourage you to break the speed limit or doing anything dangerous, so just imagine finding a road with a 75MPH speed limit. Imagine driving 74MPH on it, when it rains, and then imagine sticking your head out of the window. That is the _average_ wind between wind-gusts of a strong tropical storm that is still too weak to even be a category one hurricane. And then remember that wind force on a surface increases squared with wind speed.
Now if only they could find a way to make it strong enough for the building codes for hurricane protection...
That thing looks like it will fly away in a regular thunderstorm.
Thunder.. hmm. Lightning and cardboard. Yes. Good idea.
I think I'll stick to brick and concrete.