You misunderstand the point of my question... my point was that since virtually all of the emulators that exist today are not actually illegal in the first place (even if companies like Nintendo hate them), and I was wondering what illegal emulator a person would actually want to use.
I understand your point, but swearing is still considered immature and unprofessional. Honestly, it's surprising that this kind of stuff got past code review, let alone making it into a permanent public repository.
As I said... it would be putting their money where their mouth is.
That is, what other companies are doing shouldn't matter... if they sell less cars because the competitors who aren't following those guidelines are undercutting them, then so be it.
Of course, they aren't going to do that... so they aren't actually bitching about the restrictions being lifted as if they cared about the environment as much as they are bitching about how lifting the restrictions makes it harder for them to continue be profitable without completely changing directions from everything that has been talked about so far (which itself may have a significant expense associated with it).
Also conveniently ignoring that there are numerous other things on this earth that were once in great abundance that are now notably vastly reduced, or sometimes gone entirely.
Or do they really think that every creature that was hunted to the brink of extinction, or even wiped out entirely, was never very populous to begin with?
Or, hell... let's just talk about clean freshwater. Sure there's a lot of it, but that doesn't mean that it's always going to be there if we keep polluting the hell out of the supply that we have.
Call me skeptical, but if the automakers had really balked, they'd simply continue moving towards better and tighter emission control standards exactly as if they *had* been legally required to do so, regardless of any legislation that may be permitting them to implement workable solutions at a cheaper financial cost here and now. I know of no law that *requires* cars to pollute a certain minimum amount, after all.
Even a single layer of graphene can withstand 4Megapascals of pressure without breaking... although I know that's not that much by itself, by my understanding that would mean that you could use 37500 nested layers of graphene to effectively withstand 150gigapascals of pressure. Up that by about an order of magnitude for additional safety, wouldn't that then be more than enough to withstand it?
By indefinite I only meant that the rate at which it does leak out is either entirely undetectable, or else is known to be slow enough that it would not actually impact its fitness for purpose on any forseeably practical timescale.
Solar and wind can be generated locally, nearer the loads.
In principle, this is true, but the average power density of solar on the surface of the earth over a single solar day is about 1kw/square meter... there are many places that fall below that, and conversely there are many that are above. It would be extraordinarily wasteful IMO to not be maximizing power utilization in places with excess and sending it to places with less if it were feasible to do so with high temperature superconductive cables..
A sealed compartment or chamber which is surrounded entirely by a sufficiently resilient material could maintain that kind of pressure within it indefinitely with no additional energy requirements once the desired pressure was reached.
After leaving Earth, the Sun's escape velocity is 42.1 km/s
Yes, but it was never actually moving that fast after it left earth. It launched at 16km/s relative to earth, but lost much of that velocity simply escaping earth's gravitational pull. While it's true that 29.7km/s of that can be taken from earth's speed, it would have to accellerate an *ADDITIONAL* 13km/s beyond that to reach solar escape velocity, and while it launched at 16km/s relative to earth, it lost about half of that just getting into space, so that only gives it an extra 8km/s, giving the probe a net velocity of 37.7km/s. It would need to pick up about an extra 5km/s of velocity from gravity assists to actually make it out of the solar system, and while it did definitely gain some of that from its encounters with some of our solar system's gas giants, it's my understanding that it was still inadequate to actually achieve escape velocity.
As you say, it's only moving at 15.3km/s now... It will continue to slow down, and will eventually come back into our own solar system... either entering a very elongated orbit around the sun or possibly even ultimately crashing into it, although probably not in anyone's lifetime alive today.
The new horizons probe is going fast enough to escape the solar system, however.... so we've still got that.
As far as I know, the probe did not actually ever attain solar escape velocity, which means it will continue to slow down and eventually be pulled back, entering into an extremely long and skinny elliptical orbit around the sun.
I won't dispute that... my point is that even in a hypothetical scenario where you can paint law enforcement and government agencies as benevolent and altruistic, the end result of requiring that law enforcement be able to bypass any security is an increased level of danger for everyone that law enforcement will have to work harder to protect everyone from (or spend more money compensating innocent victims for), instead of making their jobs easier as the law intends.
That's all very well and good for people, even giving the government every benefit of the doubt about their intentions or motives (which I am aware many people do not, but that is beside the point). Regardless, if a computer must be configured to always allow legitimate access by law enforcement agencies, how does the computer distinguish between a government agency accessing it and some other random person that happens to be masquerading as the government? This isn't an issue if a computer isn't required by law to be so configured. If your computer can't distinguish between them, then who will protect you from the damage that nefarious individuals can perpetuate through this means? What reason is there to think that this circumstance would be sufficiently rare that this should not be a legitimate concern? Who will compensate the people that are so harmed? Again... none of this is an issue if a computer isn't required by law to be configured to surrender otherwise encrypted information to a government agency.
I think you're highly underestimating technology, and it depends on the level of spying that is involved. It's much cheaper and easier to put a satellite in orbit around the earth than around the moon. With no atmosphere around the moon and a powerful lense from an earth orbiting satellite you could definitely see basic structures being built.
I think you are overestimating optical acuity.
The absolute *maximum* that we could resolve even from very high earth orbit is at best something that is no smaller than about 50 meters or so on the moon... and even then, it would be just a single pixel in size using even the most powerful telescopes that we have today. The only practical way to resolve any appreciable amount of detail that would be required to effectively do any spying on what is happening on the moon is at best from lunar orbit.
For your average car and your average grid, electric is a clear win in terms of CO2. Not by like order of magnitude or anything, but by a simple fact that bigger heat engines are generally more efficient
Indeed. Even in areas where coal generates all of the electricity, a conventional automobile will put out roughly twice as much carbon pollution as is generated to charge an electric car to go the same distance.
Any intention to spy on the far side of the moon by anyone other than the US space plane, which presumably has other missions to conduct, would involve building and launching a craft to do so at considerable expense.
My argument is that any intention to spy on even the *NEAR* side of the moon would involve no less of an expense, and so putting a base on the far side would not pose any greater of a barrier than any other situated lunar base.
It's not like you can spy on the moon from the ground or hell, even in earth orbit.
Under the proposed powers, technology companies could be forced to help decrypt communications on popular messaging apps, or even build new functionality to help police access data.
What's to stop nefarious people from using that same functionality? If police can use it, even if you give them the benefit of all doubt that they would never do anything harmful with it, then the bad guys can use it too.... either because of leaks or hacking or what have you... and because the technology has to accommodate being decrypted in this way by legitimate law enforcement, how does the technology tell the difference, and recognize when it is being accessed by legitimate law enforcement and when it is not? And if (when) it cannot, then what extra measures are law enforcement going to take to protect the general public from such eventuality?
It seems to me that this is going to make law enforcement's job harder, not easier.
Australian lawmakers are idiots.... and that's being complimentary to actual idiots.
f the "E" for the "E-cars" comes from coal/oil/gas power-plants, then nothing is won in terms of "avoiding to poison the environment"
Actually, there still is.... even in areas where electricity production is still dirty, an electric car will still "produce" about 3 tons less carbon pollution per year than an ICE vehicle itself would. While that savings might not be as significant in terms of its environmental impact in areas where energy production is coal based, it is still quite far from "nothing".... and would definitely add up quickly as electric cars become more common.
Classification is virtually *always* among the criteria when it comes to buying a car, because nobody with any sense goes out and buys a car that doesn't actually meet some particular need or expectation that they have for an automobile. You don't go out to buy a car for your family of 6 and come back home with a compact 4 seater vehicle unless you are also intending to buy another family car later because that's the most you might be able to afford at the moment.
And it's worth pointing out that this was still comparing the so-called *average* price of a conventional car to one of the lowest prices for an electric car so even on the surface, suggesting that this comparison somehow reflects the affordability of electric cars for all practical purposes is ridiculous.
Obviously, but even putting that aside, it still makes no sense at all how having something on the far side would supposedly make it any more difficult to spy on it than something on the near side.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand the point of my question... my point was that since virtually all of the emulators that exist today are not actually illegal in the first place (even if companies like Nintendo hate them), and I was wondering what illegal emulator a person would actually want to use.
Only in the opinion of people who don't actually have a clue how to act like adults.
I understand your point, but swearing is still considered immature and unprofessional. Honestly, it's surprising that this kind of stuff got past code review, let alone making it into a permanent public repository.
What emulators do you know of that are illegal?
I have a strong hunch that this is an invalid assumption.
afaik, their so-called retro console *IS* an emulator.
As I said... it would be putting their money where their mouth is.
That is, what other companies are doing shouldn't matter... if they sell less cars because the competitors who aren't following those guidelines are undercutting them, then so be it.
Of course, they aren't going to do that... so they aren't actually bitching about the restrictions being lifted as if they cared about the environment as much as they are bitching about how lifting the restrictions makes it harder for them to continue be profitable without completely changing directions from everything that has been talked about so far (which itself may have a significant expense associated with it).
Also conveniently ignoring that there are numerous other things on this earth that were once in great abundance that are now notably vastly reduced, or sometimes gone entirely.
Or do they really think that every creature that was hunted to the brink of extinction, or even wiped out entirely, was never very populous to begin with?
Or, hell... let's just talk about clean freshwater. Sure there's a lot of it, but that doesn't mean that it's always going to be there if we keep polluting the hell out of the supply that we have.
Call me skeptical, but if the automakers had really balked, they'd simply continue moving towards better and tighter emission control standards exactly as if they *had* been legally required to do so, regardless of any legislation that may be permitting them to implement workable solutions at a cheaper financial cost here and now. I know of no law that *requires* cars to pollute a certain minimum amount, after all.
Even a single layer of graphene can withstand 4Megapascals of pressure without breaking... although I know that's not that much by itself, by my understanding that would mean that you could use 37500 nested layers of graphene to effectively withstand 150gigapascals of pressure. Up that by about an order of magnitude for additional safety, wouldn't that then be more than enough to withstand it?
By indefinite I only meant that the rate at which it does leak out is either entirely undetectable, or else is known to be slow enough that it would not actually impact its fitness for purpose on any forseeably practical timescale.
In principle, this is true, but the average power density of solar on the surface of the earth over a single solar day is about 1kw/square meter... there are many places that fall below that, and conversely there are many that are above. It would be extraordinarily wasteful IMO to not be maximizing power utilization in places with excess and sending it to places with less if it were feasible to do so with high temperature superconductive cables..
A sealed compartment or chamber which is surrounded entirely by a sufficiently resilient material could maintain that kind of pressure within it indefinitely with no additional energy requirements once the desired pressure was reached.
Yes, but it was never actually moving that fast after it left earth. It launched at 16km/s relative to earth, but lost much of that velocity simply escaping earth's gravitational pull. While it's true that 29.7km/s of that can be taken from earth's speed, it would have to accellerate an *ADDITIONAL* 13km/s beyond that to reach solar escape velocity, and while it launched at 16km/s relative to earth, it lost about half of that just getting into space, so that only gives it an extra 8km/s, giving the probe a net velocity of 37.7km/s. It would need to pick up about an extra 5km/s of velocity from gravity assists to actually make it out of the solar system, and while it did definitely gain some of that from its encounters with some of our solar system's gas giants, it's my understanding that it was still inadequate to actually achieve escape velocity.
As you say, it's only moving at 15.3km/s now... It will continue to slow down, and will eventually come back into our own solar system... either entering a very elongated orbit around the sun or possibly even ultimately crashing into it, although probably not in anyone's lifetime alive today.
The new horizons probe is going fast enough to escape the solar system, however.... so we've still got that.
As far as I know, the probe did not actually ever attain solar escape velocity, which means it will continue to slow down and eventually be pulled back, entering into an extremely long and skinny elliptical orbit around the sun.
I won't dispute that... my point is that even in a hypothetical scenario where you can paint law enforcement and government agencies as benevolent and altruistic, the end result of requiring that law enforcement be able to bypass any security is an increased level of danger for everyone that law enforcement will have to work harder to protect everyone from (or spend more money compensating innocent victims for), instead of making their jobs easier as the law intends.
That's all very well and good for people, even giving the government every benefit of the doubt about their intentions or motives (which I am aware many people do not, but that is beside the point). Regardless, if a computer must be configured to always allow legitimate access by law enforcement agencies, how does the computer distinguish between a government agency accessing it and some other random person that happens to be masquerading as the government? This isn't an issue if a computer isn't required by law to be so configured. If your computer can't distinguish between them, then who will protect you from the damage that nefarious individuals can perpetuate through this means? What reason is there to think that this circumstance would be sufficiently rare that this should not be a legitimate concern? Who will compensate the people that are so harmed? Again... none of this is an issue if a computer isn't required by law to be configured to surrender otherwise encrypted information to a government agency.
I think you are overestimating optical acuity.
The absolute *maximum* that we could resolve even from very high earth orbit is at best something that is no smaller than about 50 meters or so on the moon... and even then, it would be just a single pixel in size using even the most powerful telescopes that we have today. The only practical way to resolve any appreciable amount of detail that would be required to effectively do any spying on what is happening on the moon is at best from lunar orbit.
Indeed. Even in areas where coal generates all of the electricity, a conventional automobile will put out roughly twice as much carbon pollution as is generated to charge an electric car to go the same distance.
My argument is that any intention to spy on even the *NEAR* side of the moon would involve no less of an expense, and so putting a base on the far side would not pose any greater of a barrier than any other situated lunar base.
It's not like you can spy on the moon from the ground or hell, even in earth orbit.
Yes... you are right. I realized after I posted that I had completely reversed what I meant to say.
What's to stop nefarious people from using that same functionality? If police can use it, even if you give them the benefit of all doubt that they would never do anything harmful with it, then the bad guys can use it too.... either because of leaks or hacking or what have you... and because the technology has to accommodate being decrypted in this way by legitimate law enforcement, how does the technology tell the difference, and recognize when it is being accessed by legitimate law enforcement and when it is not? And if (when) it cannot, then what extra measures are law enforcement going to take to protect the general public from such eventuality?
It seems to me that this is going to make law enforcement's job harder, not easier.
Australian lawmakers are idiots.... and that's being complimentary to actual idiots.
Actually, there still is.... even in areas where electricity production is still dirty, an electric car will still "produce" about 3 tons less carbon pollution per year than an ICE vehicle itself would. While that savings might not be as significant in terms of its environmental impact in areas where energy production is coal based, it is still quite far from "nothing".... and would definitely add up quickly as electric cars become more common.
Classification is virtually *always* among the criteria when it comes to buying a car, because nobody with any sense goes out and buys a car that doesn't actually meet some particular need or expectation that they have for an automobile. You don't go out to buy a car for your family of 6 and come back home with a compact 4 seater vehicle unless you are also intending to buy another family car later because that's the most you might be able to afford at the moment.
And it's worth pointing out that this was still comparing the so-called *average* price of a conventional car to one of the lowest prices for an electric car so even on the surface, suggesting that this comparison somehow reflects the affordability of electric cars for all practical purposes is ridiculous.
Obviously, but even putting that aside, it still makes no sense at all how having something on the far side would supposedly make it any more difficult to spy on it than something on the near side.