For instance, they do their tests out in the open on public roads and put someone behind the wheel who doesn't know what is going to happen. You don't really need to do that to demonstrate that there is a problem.
Oh, how it would be nice if that were true. Unfortunately, automakers have historically been extremely reluctant to admit to any problems that would expose them to liability, whether those problems be safety related or simply operator convenience. A public demonstration is the only kind of thing that will make the TV news, which is about the only time the automakers are truly forced to respond to any issues.
The good thing about this is that they're not demonstrating a true wireless attack via OnStar or other completely terrifying remote attack. Right now, it's limited to a car with a torn-up dashboard and a wire to the OBD-II port. It doesn't look scary, it looks messy. Joe Q. Average-Public is going to interpret this to mean "it's only a problem if someone rips open my dashboard and rewires it, so I'm not going to quit driving today." But plenty of people are going to be scared, and they will provoke a serious response.
all one has to do is hack together a wireless module that plugs right into the odb buss and it's a done deal.
Hack together? You can buy a WiFi -- OBD2 bridge on ebay for under $100 so you can run diagnostic tools on your iPhone. And if you don't like WiFi, you can buy a Bluetooth one instead.
Oops, almost forgot one: radar. Not sure if you could really "attack" it by feeding it nasty bits of malware, but you could probably send it a modified signal saying "JEZUS CHRIST THERE'S A BRICK WALL 10 FEET FROM YOUR BUMPER!"
Here's the off-the-top-of-my-head list of wireless potential points of access for someone to mess with. It includes many less obvious candidates. Remote entry locks. Bluetooth (phone and data connection to the entertainment system.) GPRS/3G/4G cellular (On-Star) Wi-Fi (Ford SYNC has a built in hotspot and browser in the entertainment console. OMG WTF??) GPS. HD digital radio (it's just receiving broadcast FM, but who knows if every stereo is protected against corrupt data?) Wireless tire pressure receiver. Three RFID transceivers (for cars that use RFID keys instead of bits of metal). One each at the driver's door and the trunk, and one inside the cabin. Remote starter receiver.
It's sure a good thing we know that each and every one of these devices was correctly coded and is perfectly secure.
I have a better question....why? Why would you go to this much trouble when you can use the free Stellarium and know where pretty much everything visible (and not visible unless you have a big ass telescope) and just call it a day? It can even control a telescope for you, just slap it on a netbook, wire it to the telescope and there ya go, easy peasy.
Aside from the fact that PyEphem is probably the most ridiculously thorough ephemeris calculator available, and is an optimal tool when you are pointing one piece of equipment at one single target?
You can tell an RFID enabled card pretty easily. It's not kept secret. Your first clue should be the printing of the distinctive "radiating four parenthesis" logo that advertises "RFID within".
Second, if you have a card that you might suspect has RFID in it, but you're not sure, look carefully at the surface of the card, particularly the reflections of light on the smooth surfaces. If the card has an embedded chip, it's often visible as a small (5mm, 3/16") squarish dimple, either on the back or the front of the card. Sometimes the dimple is parallel to the edges of the card, but some HID cards have the chip set at a 45 degree angle in a corner of the card. HID cards also commonly have their ID number printed along an edge with a dot matrix printer.
Usually, though, it's not a mystery. The banks or the issuers put the RFID chip in the card because they intend for you to use it, not because they like to spend money on secret chips you won't use.
My bifold wallet is full of ID cards and other litter, and almost devoid of cash:-) and is thick enough that it doesn't meet at the edges. It's not sealed like a passport booklet. I keep two NFC cards in it, and I've found they tend to interfere with each other if I try to use either one when the wallet is closed. I've learned that to board a train I need to flip the wallet open to the side with the transit card, and it reads very quickly and reliably.
Passports close very flat. When CBP wants to scan my passport, they have to open it before placing it in the reader. I have seen video of a passport reader able to read a passport that was only open only about 1/2" (12mm), so it obviously doesn't take much of a gap.
But these are all NFC devices, and may not represent the way the 125kHz access cards used in this example do.
As he said, you could stand there by the door on your cell phone, with your back (and backpack) to the door, and nobody would question you.
If you're shy, you could put the circuit in a plastic electrical box along with a battery pack, put a big wheelchair button on the face of it, and use double sided tape to stick the box next to the door reader. Then tape an "out of order" sign over it. Our world is filled with innocuous devices that don't scream "OMG BOMB".
And I'm not a professional social engineer. I'm sure those guys are a lot more creative than I am.
except it doesn't mention how long it takes to be hacked
It takes exactly as long as it takes to read it. There is no encryption or security on these cards, so once they're read, the attacker has enough data to create a working clone.
" *Beep* - clone's ready." Except for the part where the attacker doesn't put a beeper on his reader.
Shielding options? Sure, they're pretty cheap and easy. My passport has a shield built into the cover. It has to be opened to be read. And my passport card came with a foil sleeve that shields it. You can also buy RF shielding wallets in many places.
But look at the people. People don't carry shields today because then their cards don't easily work at the readers. Watch people using the readers today, and you'll see. They like to wave their purse or wallet at the reader and walk on by. It's hardly a convenience if they have to stop, open their purse, pull out their wallet, take the card from the shield, and wave it over the reader, then put the card back in the wallet, and put the wallet back in the purse.
Another thing to consider is that lots of the companies around here integrate the RFID chip into their employee badges, which they have to have visible when walking around in their buildings. Half the people eating lunch at the various restaurants around town are wearing exposed name-tag/RFID-badges. If you hide a reader inside a McDonalds waste bin you'll get a hundred cards a day.
The last thing is that if the attacker places the device near enough to the reader, (a flower pot next to the door, perhaps) people will be extracting their cards in the vicinity to legitimately gain access. This will give the attacker a window of opportunity to clone the card.
Sorry, what I first meant was that #defined macros in C are not at all typesafe (which is the claim the GGG[G*]P was ignoring), but also that not all "ints" should be considered compatible. While it may be syntactically correct and safe to add "int milesPerGallon" and "int averageAgeOfRockStars", semantically it's nonsense. Defining these as distinct types of "miles" and "years" would enable the type system to save a developer from making that mistake.
So it's all in the timing. They give time to allow as many unsuspecting violators as possible to build up dependencies on the patented technology, then pounce.
Someone else builds the trap, baits it, but then abandons it. A trolls wanders the forest, looking for abandoned traps full of prey, sends a check to the guy whose name is written on the trap, then springs it.
OK, but what makes a patent troll different than an investor plus a lawyer? There has to be something that makes the trolls stand out. Is it the volume of patents? Why is that wrong? Is it the aggressive lawsuits? Can an inventor not defend his rights? Is it the quality of those patents? If they haven't been invalidated in court, again, why?
To use your analogy, a hooker performs a different act than a stripper, or a dancer, and that act is considered illegal. What act are the trolls performing that is different than the average inventor who holds a patent ?
I'm not trying to defend the rat-bastards, but there has to be a legal reason or justification for taking them down, and I just don't see it.
By all means, someone infringes on your patent, your personal invention, you deserve recompense. You decide you're going to build a portfolio of bullshit patents to tax society because you're a greedy scumbag, not so much.
But this is where I have a problem. Whether it's owned by a greedy scumbag or not, the invention is worth something.
(1) The inventor deserves recompense. Does that mean the inventor has to stand on a factory line and assemble each and every widget that uses his invention in order to get paid for it? Obviously not.
(2) In order to make money from his invention, he licenses it to a factory who makes the widgets including his invention. So we have someone licensed to use it, and the inventor getting paid. Nothing wrong there.
(3) One year out, and the inventor is tired of dealing with the factory, so he decides to sell his patent to them. He's made his decision, and he agrees with the payment amount, and he knows this is the last money he'll ever see from his invention. Is this a problem?
(4) Before approaching the factory for the sale, the inventor asks his lawyer to draft a contract to protect his rights in the deal, and make sure it's fair. The lawyer writes all the correct language, so it's a fair trade of money for rights that is considered equitable to both sides. Is there a problem having a lawyer represent him in this transaction? Doesn't sound like it.
Two years out and the factory realizes there's little market for widgets anymore, and they don't have anything else to do with the patent which they paid $10 million for, but someone else is interested in it for a different purpose. Do they have to make the other things themselves? Not according to #1. Can they license it to another factory? According to #2, yes. Can they sell it to an investor? The inventor did in #3. Can the investor use a lawyer to protect his interests? Once again, the inventor used a lawyer in #4.
So with this argument, we've established that intellectual property rights are a thing that can be bought and sold by the inventor, and can be sold to anyone, including an investor. The investor can hire a lawyer, or even be a lawyer. And I don't think we disagree that there's anything wrong with this scenario, even though "investor & lawyer" is just a nicer word for "patent troll".
So why is it that patent trolls are so bad? They may be the face of greed, but they got there through capitalism, and we just established that it's a perfectly legitimate path. I think the core of the problem is not necessarily with the patent trolls, it's with the very idea of software patents.
Headlight brightness is directly related to safety. The drivers need to be able to see many seconds in front of them, as well as a few seconds worth off to the sides. They can't be continuously varying according to conditions, because once they're used to a bright light, such as you would get from an oncoming car, the driver has no night vision for quite a while. So they have to be bright and stay bright.
The driver has control of high beams (for high speeds on a dark highway), and low beams ( for passing oncoming cars, urban driving, and low speeds) , but not much more as it wouldn't help much.
Most motion sensors I've installed have an aimable PIR detector, mounted on a pivot. They also have a switch that controls the duration, and include a setting for "test", which is an instant on/instant off setting. Set the switch to test and have a helper walk the area to protect, then aim the PIR accordingly.
Some old PIR detectors have a replaceable or adjustable mirror element, which allows you to change focus. Others have an adjustable sliding mask that lets you narrow the area. Use whatever you have to fine tune it.
Also, angle the floodlight down and away from the neighbor. If you can't point it low enough, you might replace the floodlight bulb with a lower wattage spotlight, which won't spray as widely.
Auto-dimming is a feature that may be built into the fixture. Read the product documentation to learn more.
NOW I know Joss Wheedon is going to kill a favourite character right in the middle of me laughing at something else... now I know... and writers know I know... so they have to think of something more clever.
Yep, that's exactly the point I was trying to get across. Joss Wheedon is now competing against Firefly and Serenity, which is a tough act to follow. And I think that's a big part of the reason he never made a season two: if you start grinding out rehashes of the same plots at the same pace, it turns into yet another grinder. Then all that's left is to jump the shark.
I think a big part of the reason The Americans is so enjoyable is that so much of it is based on true-life histories of real Soviet spies in America. Sure, they're condensed and packaged for television, but they really did do some of those things as part of their tradecraft. And spies make for some of the most interesting characters, because they use human motivations to twist people into betraying their country. We all can relate to a woman whose son is sick, and in this case bad people hold the antidote - what would we do in that situation?
Storytelling was recognized as formulaic as far back as Ancient Greece by Aristotle in his book Poetics. He knew then that most people like their stories to end up with the suffering hero redeemed, the villain punished for his misdeeds, forbidden love triumphant, etc. Therefore, that's what the moviegoers have paid for year after year, and that's what Hollywood continues to deliver today. It sells.
I think the problem is pretty simply a glut. Thanks to modern media and communications, and extra thanks to cheap filmmaking gear, everyone is constantly exposed to endless variations and combinations of these stories. Flip on the TV and there are dozens of movies waiting to stream into your brain. Even if a few are decent, most don't even rise to the level of Sharknado or Snakes on a Plane. And with so many choices, we lack the editorial reviews and critics we might otherwise use to keep out the dross.
When you see a movie that's truly new and novel, it sticks with you. Sometimes its a good story or came from a good book, sometimes it's a great actor, sometimes it's a new special effect or cinematography trick, or sometimes it plays on our childhood memories. Of course success quickly breeds imitation, and within months there are 58 variations on the theme, adding to the glut. And when the producers tire of the imitators, they release an official sequel or three, and eventually add a "reboot" or "remake" of the originals that captured our imaginations so long ago. They snazz it up, apply extra-modern graphics, bring in Daft Punk to record the soundtrack, hire sexy-fresh new kids to be tomorrow's stars, and retell the same old stories.
Spielberg knows his problem is not that his next movie will have trouble competing with the current releases. It's that he's really competing against our fondest memories of classics such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Shindler's List, Star Wars, Jaws, Casablanca, Snow White, and Toy Story, all of which are still busily crowding themselves onto our cable channels and Netflix queues. So other than the fact that he's got a billion dollars in the bank already, he's completely screwed.
Watch the morning TV news shows, then. They seem to relish in taking the news of the previous day, and applying this formula to reporting it. You've even got the title: "Royal Baby Watch" or "Wildfires" or whatever, at the top of the crawl under the screen.
The opening image is of 1) a hospital surrounded by cameras and microphones, or 2) a burning forest. The talking head begins with "Anticipation is mounting as" 1) "the baby's due date is here", 2) "the fire is burning in an arroyo dangerously close to a housing development" The setup: 1) The princess is shown with a baby bump, 2) a pastoral image of the forest taken before the fire is shown The catalyst: 1) The royal wedding, 2) hot dry weather The debate: 1) The public is excited and proud, but the queen's cousin is ambivalent. 2) Forest fires threaten homes, but fires are a natural part of a forest's cycle Break into two: 1) "The queen remains at Windsor castle, not at the hospital", 2) Politician talking about the costs in front of pictures of smoke jumpers The B-story: 1) is it a boy or a girl?, 2) Joe Smith lost his entire business Fun and Games: 1) A joke by Prince William, 2) firefighters taking a well-deserved break Bad guys close in: 1) Papparazi are all around, 2) the fires are approaching the neighborhood All is lost: 1) The child will never meet grandmother Diana, 2) Fueled by unchecked underbrush, these fires were so hot they destroyed the canopy which won't grow back for a hundred years, 14 homes destroyed Dark night of the soul: 1) & 2) Pictures of people praying Break into three: 1) Where is Prince Charles in all of this? 2) National Guard flies in helicopters and airplanes to join in fighting the fire Finale: 1) New baby! 2) Fires out!
It's even worse when it's political or a trial like the Zimmerman thing. Then the story forks depending on the slant of the news organization, and how they present it so their outcome looks like the rational path that fits the story.
It was a theory I read a few years back, probably in Scientific American. (I took special note because mesothelioma has affected our family, which includes several life-long plumbers and construction workers.)
The Wikipedia article on mesothelioma doesn't mention this particular action. It does postulate that the DNA can get tangled with or otherwise adhere to the asbestos.
There are correlations between different types of asbestos and the cancer, including the observation that long, thin fibers are more potent carcinogens, and that smaller particles are more dangerous. None of those observations run counter to the theory of the strands physically cutting the DNA.
There is a lot of data known regarding the symptoms and effects of asbestos exposure, such as inflammation. But because the action is so small, it's hard to prove the exact pathophysiology at the moment a fiber causes the first incident of cancer. We know mesothelioma develops in people who were occupationally exposed, with higher exposure rates correlating to quicker time to cancer as well as a higher incidence rate. In the body, a mechanism like this would be repeated by millions, billions, or possibly even trillions of inhaled tiny sharp fibers. The fibers are a crystalline lattice, and easily fracture along two axes, and the third axis is not very strong either. As the lungs contract and expand during breathing, any larger fibers that were lodged in clumps of cells would be snapped into progressively smaller pieces, until they're so small they can enter the cells. The sharp fibers would probably kill most cells upon cutting into them, and the collection of dead cells would trigger an immune response, accounting for the inflammation (inhaling too many fibers at once would likely cause injury or death from asbestosis.) But some cells would survive. Of those that do, it's not unreasonable that the shards may occasionally enter the nucleus. Most of the time, that would probably kill the cell, too. But once in a horrible while, a cell might survive long enough to replicate. When you have billions of cells clashing with billions of tiny shards, eventually the numbers catch up. And while white blood cells carry dead cells away, they also carry the tiny sharp fragments which remain sharp, and can pierce and escape elsewhere in the body, not unlike carrying a plastic bag of broken glass shards to the trash bin.
I want to see Greenpest protesting against nano pollution. Get your banners out morons.
Yes, that's it! They should wave microscopic banners protesting the nanoparticles! We could use a bunch of protestors as a sort of Maxwell's Demon, to use their tiny signs to bat away the bad nanoparticles while admitting the good natural nanoparticles.
Exactly. Asbestos is dangerous because the tiny shattered fibers are like little X-acto knife blades, forever stabbing at lung cells, popping them like tiny balloons. Eventually, one pierces a cell wall without killing the cell, the sharpened tip of the asbestos crystal slices some of that cell's DNA into random bits, and the cell replicates with that corrupt DNA. Sorry, but that cell just became ground zero for another case of mesothelioma.
Aerosolized ABS plastic? I don't know what shape those nanoparticles are, but I'd bet a lot they're not tiny sharpened spears, so they're not going to act like asbestos. If they're going to harm the lungs, it would have to be through a chemical reaction, like tobacco smoke. But ABS is a nontoxic, stable compound, and as it's insoluble in water, it's unlikely to break down into its toxic components. Certainly, an awful lot of very small kids have chewed on ABS plastic toys to no toxic effects.
Of course, the material safety data sheet I linked to above shows that molten plastic can cause burns, and if set on fire can release toxic smoke. So I suspect that if you inhale molten flaming ABS plastic, the health effects would be very harmful indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, they do their tests out in the open on public roads and put someone behind the wheel who doesn't know what is going to happen. You don't really need to do that to demonstrate that there is a problem.
Oh, how it would be nice if that were true. Unfortunately, automakers have historically been extremely reluctant to admit to any problems that would expose them to liability, whether those problems be safety related or simply operator convenience. A public demonstration is the only kind of thing that will make the TV news, which is about the only time the automakers are truly forced to respond to any issues.
The good thing about this is that they're not demonstrating a true wireless attack via OnStar or other completely terrifying remote attack. Right now, it's limited to a car with a torn-up dashboard and a wire to the OBD-II port. It doesn't look scary, it looks messy. Joe Q. Average-Public is going to interpret this to mean "it's only a problem if someone rips open my dashboard and rewires it, so I'm not going to quit driving today." But plenty of people are going to be scared, and they will provoke a serious response.
Which is needed, because it is a serious problem.
all one has to do is hack together a wireless module that plugs right into the odb buss and it's a done deal.
Hack together? You can buy a WiFi -- OBD2 bridge on ebay for under $100 so you can run diagnostic tools on your iPhone. And if you don't like WiFi, you can buy a Bluetooth one instead.
Oops, almost forgot one: radar. Not sure if you could really "attack" it by feeding it nasty bits of malware, but you could probably send it a modified signal saying "JEZUS CHRIST THERE'S A BRICK WALL 10 FEET FROM YOUR BUMPER!"
Here's the off-the-top-of-my-head list of wireless potential points of access for someone to mess with. It includes many less obvious candidates.
Remote entry locks.
Bluetooth (phone and data connection to the entertainment system.)
GPRS/3G/4G cellular (On-Star)
Wi-Fi (Ford SYNC has a built in hotspot and browser in the entertainment console. OMG WTF??)
GPS.
HD digital radio (it's just receiving broadcast FM, but who knows if every stereo is protected against corrupt data?)
Wireless tire pressure receiver.
Three RFID transceivers (for cars that use RFID keys instead of bits of metal). One each at the driver's door and the trunk, and one inside the cabin.
Remote starter receiver.
It's sure a good thing we know that each and every one of these devices was correctly coded and is perfectly secure.
I have a better question....why? Why would you go to this much trouble when you can use the free Stellarium and know where pretty much everything visible (and not visible unless you have a big ass telescope) and just call it a day? It can even control a telescope for you, just slap it on a netbook, wire it to the telescope and there ya go, easy peasy.
Aside from the fact that PyEphem is probably the most ridiculously thorough ephemeris calculator available, and is an optimal tool when you are pointing one piece of equipment at one single target?
I know, let's check with Stellarium's own documentation on the subject:
"As of the current version, this plug-in doesn't allow satellite tracking, and is not very suitable for Moon or planetary observations."
I noticed a distinct lack of both easy and peasy in that statement. Does that answer your question of "why?"
You can tell an RFID enabled card pretty easily. It's not kept secret. Your first clue should be the printing of the distinctive "radiating four parenthesis" logo that advertises "RFID within".
Second, if you have a card that you might suspect has RFID in it, but you're not sure, look carefully at the surface of the card, particularly the reflections of light on the smooth surfaces. If the card has an embedded chip, it's often visible as a small (5mm, 3/16") squarish dimple, either on the back or the front of the card. Sometimes the dimple is parallel to the edges of the card, but some HID cards have the chip set at a 45 degree angle in a corner of the card. HID cards also commonly have their ID number printed along an edge with a dot matrix printer.
Usually, though, it's not a mystery. The banks or the issuers put the RFID chip in the card because they intend for you to use it, not because they like to spend money on secret chips you won't use.
Good question!
My bifold wallet is full of ID cards and other litter, and almost devoid of cash :-) and is thick enough that it doesn't meet at the edges. It's not sealed like a passport booklet. I keep two NFC cards in it, and I've found they tend to interfere with each other if I try to use either one when the wallet is closed. I've learned that to board a train I need to flip the wallet open to the side with the transit card, and it reads very quickly and reliably.
Passports close very flat. When CBP wants to scan my passport, they have to open it before placing it in the reader. I have seen video of a passport reader able to read a passport that was only open only about 1/2" (12mm), so it obviously doesn't take much of a gap.
But these are all NFC devices, and may not represent the way the 125kHz access cards used in this example do.
You never taken PATH train or Subway in NYC have you? This would totally work, time to buy stock in lead wallets.
Lead wallets? The cards aren't read with X-rays! Aluminum foil works fine to block the RF emissions.
As he said, you could stand there by the door on your cell phone, with your back (and backpack) to the door, and nobody would question you.
If you're shy, you could put the circuit in a plastic electrical box along with a battery pack, put a big wheelchair button on the face of it, and use double sided tape to stick the box next to the door reader. Then tape an "out of order" sign over it. Our world is filled with innocuous devices that don't scream "OMG BOMB".
And I'm not a professional social engineer. I'm sure those guys are a lot more creative than I am.
except it doesn't mention how long it takes to be hacked
It takes exactly as long as it takes to read it. There is no encryption or security on these cards, so once they're read, the attacker has enough data to create a working clone.
" *Beep* - clone's ready." Except for the part where the attacker doesn't put a beeper on his reader.
Shielding options? Sure, they're pretty cheap and easy. My passport has a shield built into the cover. It has to be opened to be read. And my passport card came with a foil sleeve that shields it. You can also buy RF shielding wallets in many places.
But look at the people. People don't carry shields today because then their cards don't easily work at the readers. Watch people using the readers today, and you'll see. They like to wave their purse or wallet at the reader and walk on by. It's hardly a convenience if they have to stop, open their purse, pull out their wallet, take the card from the shield, and wave it over the reader, then put the card back in the wallet, and put the wallet back in the purse.
Another thing to consider is that lots of the companies around here integrate the RFID chip into their employee badges, which they have to have visible when walking around in their buildings. Half the people eating lunch at the various restaurants around town are wearing exposed name-tag/RFID-badges. If you hide a reader inside a McDonalds waste bin you'll get a hundred cards a day.
The last thing is that if the attacker places the device near enough to the reader, (a flower pot next to the door, perhaps) people will be extracting their cards in the vicinity to legitimately gain access. This will give the attacker a window of opportunity to clone the card.
Sorry, what I first meant was that #defined macros in C are not at all typesafe (which is the claim the GGG[G*]P was ignoring), but also that not all "ints" should be considered compatible. While it may be syntactically correct and safe to add "int milesPerGallon" and "int averageAgeOfRockStars", semantically it's nonsense. Defining these as distinct types of "miles" and "years" would enable the type system to save a developer from making that mistake.
So it's all in the timing. They give time to allow as many unsuspecting violators as possible to build up dependencies on the patented technology, then pounce.
Someone else builds the trap, baits it, but then abandons it. A trolls wanders the forest, looking for abandoned traps full of prey, sends a check to the guy whose name is written on the trap, then springs it.
Thanks!
OK, but what makes a patent troll different than an investor plus a lawyer? There has to be something that makes the trolls stand out. Is it the volume of patents? Why is that wrong? Is it the aggressive lawsuits? Can an inventor not defend his rights? Is it the quality of those patents? If they haven't been invalidated in court, again, why?
To use your analogy, a hooker performs a different act than a stripper, or a dancer, and that act is considered illegal. What act are the trolls performing that is different than the average inventor who holds a patent ?
I'm not trying to defend the rat-bastards, but there has to be a legal reason or justification for taking them down, and I just don't see it.
By all means, someone infringes on your patent, your personal invention, you deserve recompense. You decide you're going to build a portfolio of bullshit patents to tax society because you're a greedy scumbag, not so much.
But this is where I have a problem. Whether it's owned by a greedy scumbag or not, the invention is worth something.
(1) The inventor deserves recompense. Does that mean the inventor has to stand on a factory line and assemble each and every widget that uses his invention in order to get paid for it? Obviously not.
(2) In order to make money from his invention, he licenses it to a factory who makes the widgets including his invention. So we have someone licensed to use it, and the inventor getting paid. Nothing wrong there.
(3) One year out, and the inventor is tired of dealing with the factory, so he decides to sell his patent to them. He's made his decision, and he agrees with the payment amount, and he knows this is the last money he'll ever see from his invention. Is this a problem?
(4) Before approaching the factory for the sale, the inventor asks his lawyer to draft a contract to protect his rights in the deal, and make sure it's fair. The lawyer writes all the correct language, so it's a fair trade of money for rights that is considered equitable to both sides. Is there a problem having a lawyer represent him in this transaction? Doesn't sound like it.
Two years out and the factory realizes there's little market for widgets anymore, and they don't have anything else to do with the patent which they paid $10 million for, but someone else is interested in it for a different purpose. Do they have to make the other things themselves? Not according to #1. Can they license it to another factory? According to #2, yes. Can they sell it to an investor? The inventor did in #3. Can the investor use a lawyer to protect his interests? Once again, the inventor used a lawyer in #4.
So with this argument, we've established that intellectual property rights are a thing that can be bought and sold by the inventor, and can be sold to anyone, including an investor. The investor can hire a lawyer, or even be a lawyer. And I don't think we disagree that there's anything wrong with this scenario, even though "investor & lawyer" is just a nicer word for "patent troll".
So why is it that patent trolls are so bad? They may be the face of greed, but they got there through capitalism, and we just established that it's a perfectly legitimate path. I think the core of the problem is not necessarily with the patent trolls, it's with the very idea of software patents.
Constants aren't type safe.
Headlight brightness is directly related to safety. The drivers need to be able to see many seconds in front of them, as well as a few seconds worth off to the sides. They can't be continuously varying according to conditions, because once they're used to a bright light, such as you would get from an oncoming car, the driver has no night vision for quite a while. So they have to be bright and stay bright.
The driver has control of high beams (for high speeds on a dark highway), and low beams ( for passing oncoming cars, urban driving, and low speeds) , but not much more as it wouldn't help much.
Most motion sensors I've installed have an aimable PIR detector, mounted on a pivot. They also have a switch that controls the duration, and include a setting for "test", which is an instant on/instant off setting. Set the switch to test and have a helper walk the area to protect, then aim the PIR accordingly.
Some old PIR detectors have a replaceable or adjustable mirror element, which allows you to change focus. Others have an adjustable sliding mask that lets you narrow the area. Use whatever you have to fine tune it.
Also, angle the floodlight down and away from the neighbor. If you can't point it low enough, you might replace the floodlight bulb with a lower wattage spotlight, which won't spray as widely.
Auto-dimming is a feature that may be built into the fixture. Read the product documentation to learn more.
NOW I know Joss Wheedon is going to kill a favourite character right in the middle of me laughing at something else... now I know... and writers know I know... so they have to think of something more clever.
Yep, that's exactly the point I was trying to get across. Joss Wheedon is now competing against Firefly and Serenity, which is a tough act to follow. And I think that's a big part of the reason he never made a season two: if you start grinding out rehashes of the same plots at the same pace, it turns into yet another grinder. Then all that's left is to jump the shark.
I think a big part of the reason The Americans is so enjoyable is that so much of it is based on true-life histories of real Soviet spies in America. Sure, they're condensed and packaged for television, but they really did do some of those things as part of their tradecraft. And spies make for some of the most interesting characters, because they use human motivations to twist people into betraying their country. We all can relate to a woman whose son is sick, and in this case bad people hold the antidote - what would we do in that situation?
Storytelling was recognized as formulaic as far back as Ancient Greece by Aristotle in his book Poetics. He knew then that most people like their stories to end up with the suffering hero redeemed, the villain punished for his misdeeds, forbidden love triumphant, etc. Therefore, that's what the moviegoers have paid for year after year, and that's what Hollywood continues to deliver today. It sells.
I think the problem is pretty simply a glut. Thanks to modern media and communications, and extra thanks to cheap filmmaking gear, everyone is constantly exposed to endless variations and combinations of these stories. Flip on the TV and there are dozens of movies waiting to stream into your brain. Even if a few are decent, most don't even rise to the level of Sharknado or Snakes on a Plane. And with so many choices, we lack the editorial reviews and critics we might otherwise use to keep out the dross.
When you see a movie that's truly new and novel, it sticks with you. Sometimes its a good story or came from a good book, sometimes it's a great actor, sometimes it's a new special effect or cinematography trick, or sometimes it plays on our childhood memories. Of course success quickly breeds imitation, and within months there are 58 variations on the theme, adding to the glut. And when the producers tire of the imitators, they release an official sequel or three, and eventually add a "reboot" or "remake" of the originals that captured our imaginations so long ago. They snazz it up, apply extra-modern graphics, bring in Daft Punk to record the soundtrack, hire sexy-fresh new kids to be tomorrow's stars, and retell the same old stories.
Spielberg knows his problem is not that his next movie will have trouble competing with the current releases. It's that he's really competing against our fondest memories of classics such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Shindler's List, Star Wars, Jaws, Casablanca, Snow White, and Toy Story, all of which are still busily crowding themselves onto our cable channels and Netflix queues. So other than the fact that he's got a billion dollars in the bank already, he's completely screwed.
Watch the morning TV news shows, then. They seem to relish in taking the news of the previous day, and applying this formula to reporting it. You've even got the title: "Royal Baby Watch" or "Wildfires" or whatever, at the top of the crawl under the screen.
The opening image is of 1) a hospital surrounded by cameras and microphones, or 2) a burning forest.
The talking head begins with "Anticipation is mounting as" 1) "the baby's due date is here", 2) "the fire is burning in an arroyo dangerously close to a housing development"
The setup: 1) The princess is shown with a baby bump, 2) a pastoral image of the forest taken before the fire is shown
The catalyst: 1) The royal wedding, 2) hot dry weather
The debate: 1) The public is excited and proud, but the queen's cousin is ambivalent. 2) Forest fires threaten homes, but fires are a natural part of a forest's cycle
Break into two: 1) "The queen remains at Windsor castle, not at the hospital", 2) Politician talking about the costs in front of pictures of smoke jumpers
The B-story: 1) is it a boy or a girl?, 2) Joe Smith lost his entire business
Fun and Games: 1) A joke by Prince William, 2) firefighters taking a well-deserved break
Bad guys close in: 1) Papparazi are all around, 2) the fires are approaching the neighborhood
All is lost: 1) The child will never meet grandmother Diana, 2) Fueled by unchecked underbrush, these fires were so hot they destroyed the canopy which won't grow back for a hundred years, 14 homes destroyed
Dark night of the soul: 1) & 2) Pictures of people praying
Break into three: 1) Where is Prince Charles in all of this? 2) National Guard flies in helicopters and airplanes to join in fighting the fire
Finale: 1) New baby! 2) Fires out!
It's even worse when it's political or a trial like the Zimmerman thing. Then the story forks depending on the slant of the news organization, and how they present it so their outcome looks like the rational path that fits the story.
It was a theory I read a few years back, probably in Scientific American. (I took special note because mesothelioma has affected our family, which includes several life-long plumbers and construction workers.)
The Wikipedia article on mesothelioma doesn't mention this particular action. It does postulate that the DNA can get tangled with or otherwise adhere to the asbestos.
There are correlations between different types of asbestos and the cancer, including the observation that long, thin fibers are more potent carcinogens, and that smaller particles are more dangerous. None of those observations run counter to the theory of the strands physically cutting the DNA.
There is a lot of data known regarding the symptoms and effects of asbestos exposure, such as inflammation. But because the action is so small, it's hard to prove the exact pathophysiology at the moment a fiber causes the first incident of cancer. We know mesothelioma develops in people who were occupationally exposed, with higher exposure rates correlating to quicker time to cancer as well as a higher incidence rate. In the body, a mechanism like this would be repeated by millions, billions, or possibly even trillions of inhaled tiny sharp fibers. The fibers are a crystalline lattice, and easily fracture along two axes, and the third axis is not very strong either. As the lungs contract and expand during breathing, any larger fibers that were lodged in clumps of cells would be snapped into progressively smaller pieces, until they're so small they can enter the cells. The sharp fibers would probably kill most cells upon cutting into them, and the collection of dead cells would trigger an immune response, accounting for the inflammation (inhaling too many fibers at once would likely cause injury or death from asbestosis.) But some cells would survive. Of those that do, it's not unreasonable that the shards may occasionally enter the nucleus. Most of the time, that would probably kill the cell, too. But once in a horrible while, a cell might survive long enough to replicate. When you have billions of cells clashing with billions of tiny shards, eventually the numbers catch up. And while white blood cells carry dead cells away, they also carry the tiny sharp fragments which remain sharp, and can pierce and escape elsewhere in the body, not unlike carrying a plastic bag of broken glass shards to the trash bin.
Here's a pretty dramatic photo (from 1974) of an asbestos shard that has pierced a cell: http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=1475375_envhper00499-0240-b&req=4
I want to see Greenpest protesting against nano pollution. Get your banners out morons.
Yes, that's it! They should wave microscopic banners protesting the nanoparticles! We could use a bunch of protestors as a sort of Maxwell's Demon, to use their tiny signs to bat away the bad nanoparticles while admitting the good natural nanoparticles.
Exactly. Asbestos is dangerous because the tiny shattered fibers are like little X-acto knife blades, forever stabbing at lung cells, popping them like tiny balloons. Eventually, one pierces a cell wall without killing the cell, the sharpened tip of the asbestos crystal slices some of that cell's DNA into random bits, and the cell replicates with that corrupt DNA. Sorry, but that cell just became ground zero for another case of mesothelioma.
Aerosolized ABS plastic? I don't know what shape those nanoparticles are, but I'd bet a lot they're not tiny sharpened spears, so they're not going to act like asbestos. If they're going to harm the lungs, it would have to be through a chemical reaction, like tobacco smoke. But ABS is a nontoxic, stable compound, and as it's insoluble in water, it's unlikely to break down into its toxic components. Certainly, an awful lot of very small kids have chewed on ABS plastic toys to no toxic effects.
Of course, the material safety data sheet I linked to above shows that molten plastic can cause burns, and if set on fire can release toxic smoke. So I suspect that if you inhale molten flaming ABS plastic, the health effects would be very harmful indeed.
Thus the qualification with the words "consumer-facing".