I've always wondered what would happen in such a regime if the password you give them doesn't work for them because it's biometrically keyed to work only for you?
And what would happen if further, the biometric protections utilize mechanisms that go so far as to examine your brain waves to evaluate your emotional state at the time you are attempting to unlock the device, and will not unlock, not even for you, while you are experiencing above average levels of stress or otherwise under any kind of duress to unlock it?
And of course, throwing you in a cage because you used such impenetrable encryption wouldn't change anything, and would in general only make it even *more* difficult for you to unlock the device for them.
Thankfully not often, but perhaps 3 or 4 times in the past year or so, and never prior to that, I've had "no service available" where I know I should otherwise have. Doing a complete power cycle seems to make the problem go away each time, but it's damn annoying.
That's actually a really good point... and one that I was going to mention myself. Does anybody know what the upper cap is on frequencies that can be produced by modern audio equipment? I'm betting that if they can even produce inaudible frequencies at all, it's not liable to be much higher than the maximum human hearing frequency, and that would still be well within the hearing range of many household pets, so I think we'd need to investigate that carefully before filling people's homes with it. If they can make sounds like at about 150khz or more (which I doubt), then we should be fine. I can't think of any household pet that one might have with that kind of hearing range. If not, however, this may not be a very smart thing to do, depending on how the sound affects them.
Assuming constant bullet speed, the question is simply a creatively worded variation of the standard "train A leaves a station at X miles per hour...." kind of question.
There is an easier way to solve it, assuming the bullet speed remains constant. No calculus involved at all.
Let v1 = velocity of skateboard
Let v2 = velocity of bullet
Let t = total time after stealing the skateboard until Billy is hit
Distance traveled can be described either as v1 * t or as v2 * (t-20)
Since the two equations for distance traveled must be equal, set up an equation with them on either side. This is a simple linear equation, so solving for t is simple. The distance traveled can be calculated by using either of the above two formulas for distance.
Adding air drag effects on the bullet, it is going to be more complicated, and might require calculus. There may also be an easier way to express it, but I don't see it offhand.
For question 12, it is impossible to know precisely how far without knowing the mass of the bullets that were used and their type (a 357 can take about half a dozen different types of bullets, each moving at a different speed). Or are you only wanting to know how far Billy is at the time the trigger is pulled?
We don't even necessarily need FTL. to do it in a human lifetime... we could also take advantage of time dilation at speeds close to that of the speed of light to make journeys that might take many hundreds or even thousands of years in what is easily the lifespan of those on board the ship. I do not anticipate that a technology which might make that feasible would be discovered anytime this century.
but every other thing humans can do, some other animal can do
No animal has ever been successfully taught to read (specifically, to comprehend what is written), which neither requires the capability of speech, nor any of the predictive capability you suggest may be our only mental advantage.
The only similar thing we have where I live is that able-bodied individuals, whether children or adults, seated in the seats nearest the door of public transit vehicles are encouraged to give up their seats for the elderly or disabled. The only circumstance in which this is mandatory is when the person who is boarding is in a wheelchair, and they require the use of a convertible seat designed to accommodate wheelchairs that is occupied by able-bodied individuals. The bus must further not be so crowded that they cannot even get the wheelchair to the seat without people otherwise needing to leave the train or bus.
Kids are always accompanied by adults, so the zoo still sells a full priced ticket (or two) to a family. Also, it is an incentive to go with your kid rather than leave him at home. The age cutoff for cheaper tickets is usually quite low (7 or so), so the cheaper/free ticket is also offered as a convenience for the parents (a 2 year old kid probably won't get a lot out of the visit, but you take him there when visiting the zoo with your older kid so as not to leave him alone).
I think it's much more complex than that. Child bus tickets and passes cost less than adult ones, for instance, even if the child is not accompanied by an adult (which would often be the case for say a 12 or 13 year-old taking a public transit bus to or from school).
Koko the gorilla understood a spoken vocabulary of about 2000 words, being able to express a little over half of them in sign. While this certainly sounds impressive, and in truth is impressive for any non-human, a normal 6-year old will typically be able to express 2500 words or more, and has a total receptive vocabulary of usually no fewer than 20,000 words.
In terms of vocabulary, Koko was more roughly the equivalent of a 3 or 4 year old human child, not a 6-year old one.
I'm suggesting that comparing fossil fuel efficiency does not compare their car to an electric vehicle in the first place, which is what their claim did. There's nothing "just because" about it.... they say that their car runs cleaner than an electric car and that claim is false, full stop. However clean their car is per unit of power compared to the most common fossil fuel electricity production facilities is beside the point because those facilities are not, themselves, electric vehicles. They are closer, in fact, to the exact opposite because they PRODUCE electricity, while electric cars use it.
Because their car isn't cleaner than a an electric car at all.... at most the only thing they can say is that their gasoline car is cleaner per unit of power than fossil-fuel based means of electricity production.
Which isn't comparing their car to an electric vehicle at all, it's comparing fossil-fuel efficiency.
Exactly, so their car isn't really cleaner than an electric car at all, at best they might only be able to claim that it's cleaner per unit of power than the most common current electricity generation facilities that are still fossil fuel based.
The claim is not comparing apples to apples, as it otherwise suggests, and is a complete falsehood.
Production of photovoltaic cells relies on semiconductor technology which is inherently dirty
Uh... no.
Trees.
Solar power does not inherently have to be dirty.... we just haven't figured out how, yet. Renewables in conjunction with nuclear is a fine stepping stone in that direction, but it shouldn't be thought of as an end game because it's still not as indefinitely sustainable as 100% renewable energy.
They know that they're lying, and they are trying to justify it.
They say that its engine runs cleaner than electric, but then disclaim that to say that their claim is based on the notion that many places still produce electricity through the burning of fossil fuels, and that in regions where electricity comes from non-fossil fuels that isn't the case. Ignoring the fact that clean electricity production is getting more and more widely used, this claim would also seem to suggest that they are saying that a region's entire electricity production system is part of their own car's engine. Comparing apples to apples here, that's a lie, plain and simple. Their car still burns gasoline, and it emits pollution. Fully electric cars do neither, full stop.
If they had integrity, they would instead be saying that it is the cleanest running engine they have ever produced, and instead of making the generalization (falsely) that it is cleaner than an electric car, state that it's overall environmental impact works out to be less than that of an electric car in regions using current most common methods of fossil fuel-based energy production.
Since of course, fossil fuel power generation isn't exactly a static comparison point, and cleaner technologies for such power generation can always be developed.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wondered what would happen in such a regime if the password you give them doesn't work for them because it's biometrically keyed to work only for you?
And what would happen if further, the biometric protections utilize mechanisms that go so far as to examine your brain waves to evaluate your emotional state at the time you are attempting to unlock the device, and will not unlock, not even for you, while you are experiencing above average levels of stress or otherwise under any kind of duress to unlock it?
And of course, throwing you in a cage because you used such impenetrable encryption wouldn't change anything, and would in general only make it even *more* difficult for you to unlock the device for them.
Thankfully not often, but perhaps 3 or 4 times in the past year or so, and never prior to that, I've had "no service available" where I know I should otherwise have. Doing a complete power cycle seems to make the problem go away each time, but it's damn annoying.
Speak for yourself... most of my cats respond to me.
20khz is well within the hearing range for dogs and cats... will this play havoc with people's pets?
That's actually a really good point... and one that I was going to mention myself. Does anybody know what the upper cap is on frequencies that can be produced by modern audio equipment? I'm betting that if they can even produce inaudible frequencies at all, it's not liable to be much higher than the maximum human hearing frequency, and that would still be well within the hearing range of many household pets, so I think we'd need to investigate that carefully before filling people's homes with it. If they can make sounds like at about 150khz or more (which I doubt), then we should be fine. I can't think of any household pet that one might have with that kind of hearing range. If not, however, this may not be a very smart thing to do, depending on how the sound affects them.
Assuming constant bullet speed, the question is simply a creatively worded variation of the standard "train A leaves a station at X miles per hour...." kind of question.
There is an easier way to solve it, assuming the bullet speed remains constant. No calculus involved at all.
Let v1 = velocity of skateboard
Let v2 = velocity of bullet
Let t = total time after stealing the skateboard until Billy is hit
Distance traveled can be described either as v1 * t or as v2 * (t-20)
Since the two equations for distance traveled must be equal, set up an equation with them on either side. This is a simple linear equation, so solving for t is simple. The distance traveled can be calculated by using either of the above two formulas for distance.
Adding air drag effects on the bullet, it is going to be more complicated, and might require calculus. There may also be an easier way to express it, but I don't see it offhand.
While perhaps more of a car manufacturer than tech company, I'd say that they still qualify at least partially as the latter.
"Better the devil you know....." springs to mind immediately.
For question 12, it is impossible to know precisely how far without knowing the mass of the bullets that were used and their type (a 357 can take about half a dozen different types of bullets, each moving at a different speed). Or are you only wanting to know how far Billy is at the time the trigger is pulled?
.... the Windows 10 upgrade?
We don't even necessarily need FTL. to do it in a human lifetime... we could also take advantage of time dilation at speeds close to that of the speed of light to make journeys that might take many hundreds or even thousands of years in what is easily the lifespan of those on board the ship. I do not anticipate that a technology which might make that feasible would be discovered anytime this century.
No animal has ever been successfully taught to read (specifically, to comprehend what is written), which neither requires the capability of speech, nor any of the predictive capability you suggest may be our only mental advantage.
The only similar thing we have where I live is that able-bodied individuals, whether children or adults, seated in the seats nearest the door of public transit vehicles are encouraged to give up their seats for the elderly or disabled. The only circumstance in which this is mandatory is when the person who is boarding is in a wheelchair, and they require the use of a convertible seat designed to accommodate wheelchairs that is occupied by able-bodied individuals. The bus must further not be so crowded that they cannot even get the wheelchair to the seat without people otherwise needing to leave the train or bus.
I think it's much more complex than that. Child bus tickets and passes cost less than adult ones, for instance, even if the child is not accompanied by an adult (which would often be the case for say a 12 or 13 year-old taking a public transit bus to or from school).
Did you report the vehicle stolen? No.... then you're responsible.
Koko the gorilla understood a spoken vocabulary of about 2000 words, being able to express a little over half of them in sign. While this certainly sounds impressive, and in truth is impressive for any non-human, a normal 6-year old will typically be able to express 2500 words or more, and has a total receptive vocabulary of usually no fewer than 20,000 words.
In terms of vocabulary, Koko was more roughly the equivalent of a 3 or 4 year old human child, not a 6-year old one.
I'm suggesting that comparing fossil fuel efficiency does not compare their car to an electric vehicle in the first place, which is what their claim did. There's nothing "just because" about it.... they say that their car runs cleaner than an electric car and that claim is false, full stop. However clean their car is per unit of power compared to the most common fossil fuel electricity production facilities is beside the point because those facilities are not, themselves, electric vehicles. They are closer, in fact, to the exact opposite because they PRODUCE electricity, while electric cars use it.
Because their car isn't cleaner than a an electric car at all.... at most the only thing they can say is that their gasoline car is cleaner per unit of power than fossil-fuel based means of electricity production.
Which isn't comparing their car to an electric vehicle at all, it's comparing fossil-fuel efficiency.
This expression makes about as much sense as talking about the 4 corners of a circle.
There are no tailpipe emissions in a fully electric vehicle because there's no need for a tailpipe in the first place.
How big a gas tank are you thinking it has that you can drive it for 24 full hours without needing more gas?
Exactly, so their car isn't really cleaner than an electric car at all, at best they might only be able to claim that it's cleaner per unit of power than the most common current electricity generation facilities that are still fossil fuel based.
The claim is not comparing apples to apples, as it otherwise suggests, and is a complete falsehood.
Uh... no.
Trees.
Solar power does not inherently have to be dirty.... we just haven't figured out how, yet. Renewables in conjunction with nuclear is a fine stepping stone in that direction, but it shouldn't be thought of as an end game because it's still not as indefinitely sustainable as 100% renewable energy.
They know that they're lying, and they are trying to justify it.
They say that its engine runs cleaner than electric, but then disclaim that to say that their claim is based on the notion that many places still produce electricity through the burning of fossil fuels, and that in regions where electricity comes from non-fossil fuels that isn't the case. Ignoring the fact that clean electricity production is getting more and more widely used, this claim would also seem to suggest that they are saying that a region's entire electricity production system is part of their own car's engine. Comparing apples to apples here, that's a lie, plain and simple. Their car still burns gasoline, and it emits pollution. Fully electric cars do neither, full stop.
If they had integrity, they would instead be saying that it is the cleanest running engine they have ever produced, and instead of making the generalization (falsely) that it is cleaner than an electric car, state that it's overall environmental impact works out to be less than that of an electric car in regions using current most common methods of fossil fuel-based energy production.
Since of course, fossil fuel power generation isn't exactly a static comparison point, and cleaner technologies for such power generation can always be developed.
Nothing with over a billion years of historical precedent that it is indefinitely sustainable.