There are two issues with comparing artillery shells with this technology.
Scale. Many technologies do not scale well. What may work with a 100lb projectile may not work with a 1000lb projectile. Materials react differently when scaled up.
Guidance. The Copperhead is a ballistic and sometimes glide projectile with minor terminal correction to hit a target. It is basically fired in the direction of the target and when it senses the laser return corrects it's trajectory to hit the target. The projectile with this technology would need much more thrust and guidance control to be able to change orbit and rendezvous with a spacecraft.
I may be wrong in this calculation but running the numbers I get a weird result. The gun is 1.1K long with a final velocity of 3km/s. So the payload would be in the gun for 1.1/(3/2) = 0.73 seconds. In that 0.73 seconds the payload would accelerate to 3 kms/sec The continuous acceleration would be 3000/9.8/0.73= 417 Gs. That is sure a lot of Gs. Much more than the 3.2 the shuttle produces.
Every business model in their list has been done by many software companies and the process to obtain the license is standard practice. How can anyone patent something like this?
It is not injectable as it is a solid and does require surgery to implant. During manufacture it is a liquid but only at very high temperatures.
The glass is uses a a substitute for metal rods and plates not casts. These plates and rods hold unstable bones and bone fragments into position so they can heal correctly. For partial or many simple breaks they are not used. Even with these plates or rods implanted the patient needs a cast to completely immobilize the injury.
This is a perfect example of why IT rules do not get followed. Even firing a few people for infraction probably would not work. Most people would think "No one would get fired for such a minor issue. I bet that was just an excuse. There must be some other reason." Even if it did work, the only people who would be effected by it would be in the same office as the person fired. Possibly effective for a single office company; not so good for a large company (or are you suggesting firing someone from every office before the message gets through). What is wrong with giving out a little extra information so that people understand the reason behind the rule?
"Use a strong password and don't write it down, or someone can masquerade as you, you will be blamed for their actions and you'll get fired."
"Don't plug your own USB key into a company computer, or our network could be infected by a virus costing thousands of $ and you'll get fired."
"Don't surf porn sites on your company laptop, or we could be sued for sexual harassment costing us thousands of $ and you'll get fired."
Would you rather have users think "stupid rule, screw it" or "Now I understand, I better follow it".
BTW, "don't be stupid" is not a valid AUP clause. An AUP is a legal document the will be referred to in any wrongful dismissal suit. "Don't be stupid" is vague and open to interpretation and would not hold up in court. It relies on the company being able to prove that the employee knew something was stupid and did it anyway; extremely difficult at best.
You do not have to explain the technology; you have to explain the consequences.
For example; To explain the need for strong passwords and not writing them down on a piece of paper next to your computer. "If someone figured out or found your password they could log into our system and as far as the system is concerned they would be you. Do you really want to be blamed for something someone else did?"
Yes, it is complicated. It is also understandable if enough information is given to the users. The standard IT responses of "it's company policy" and "just do it" do not cut it in an intelligent workplace. Sure you want users to follow the rules but giving real reasons why might just raise compliance.
A slippery slope argument is defined as "Doing A is not bad but could lead to be which is bad". Conversely if doing A is bad then it is not a slippery slope argument.
What ever is bad now should be argued on the current facts; not what could possibly happen under different circumstances.
Slippery slope arguments are not valid. Not doing something now because something else bad could happen under different circumstances in the future is not a logical argument. If there ever was a proposal to secretly track speeding offenders and ticket them based on that secret tracking then would be the time to object.
The main point here I think is that if a judge will sign a warrant the the right to privacy for that individual is null and void.
That would be true if the statement was "there is no published scientific proof" but that is not the case. The test is to prove that there is no published or unpublished scientific documentation.
Any test for God that can not find God could be written off as God, if he exists, not wanting to participate in the test. As for unanswered prayers, surely God doesn't have to grant everyone's wish; existence is different than effectiveness.
The statement "there is no scientific proof" is not provable; it is only disprovable by presenting the scientific proof. Proving absence is very difficult; e.g prove there is no god.
The mercury release caused by burning coal (burning coal releases quite a bit of mercury into the air) to produce the extra energy to run an incandescent for a year is more than the mercury contained in one CF.
Should CFs be disposed of properly? Yes. Is one broken CF a hazmat issue? No.
CFs use $3 yr more power than the LED (13W instead of 6.9W) and you need 2 of them for 20 years so the cost would be 3*19 +2*2 = $65; still more than the $40 cost of the bulb.
My main problem with LEDs that I have seen is that their light is to cold and white. It hurts my eyes and causes migraines. I didn't see a temperature quoted in the article.
Only if I was stupid enough to go to a store that only sold printers to Jews. The tag is assigned at the manufacturer and there is no control over where it goes after that. These tags are used to find where something is printed not to classify who is printing.
Seems you don't read the news much lately. There was another plot to blow up planes recently broken up in England. It is not a once every 200 year event. There is no "essential liberty" involved in plotting to kill people.
I am also not talking about the world class events. What about the plot to hold up a bank? Would you like to be the police officer telling the wife of a dead guard "We knew they were planning a robbery but we couldn't listen to their phone conversations and had no idea which bank they would hit or when. I am sorry your husband was killed".
The main flaw in your argument is the premise that we either watch everything or we watch nothing. I agree that cameras in one's house and blind wiretapping is going too far. On the other hand when there is credible evidence that something illegal is going on and a warrant is issued then go ahead and watch.
I just noticed that the past paragraph states "Algaeus only runs on a 5% blend of algae fuel". Basically only 1.25 gallons of algae fuel will be used. The rest of the energy will come from conventional fossil fuels and the electrical grid. Not much of a big advancement.
Back to the MPG debate when dealing with electric/hybrid vehicles. Any time one take electricity from the grid, which this car does through the plug, that energy is not counted in the MPG. This makes MPG rating suspect at best. It also merely shifts the carbon load to the electricity plants rather then the vehicle causing the carbon footprint to be distorted.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two issues with comparing artillery shells with this technology.
Scale.
Many technologies do not scale well. What may work with a 100lb projectile may not work with a 1000lb projectile. Materials react differently when scaled up.
Guidance.
The Copperhead is a ballistic and sometimes glide projectile with minor terminal correction to hit a target. It is basically fired in the direction of the target and when it senses the laser return corrects it's trajectory to hit the target.
The projectile with this technology would need much more thrust and guidance control to be able to change orbit and rendezvous with a spacecraft.
I may be wrong in this calculation but running the numbers I get a weird result.
The gun is 1.1K long with a final velocity of 3km/s.
So the payload would be in the gun for 1.1/(3/2) = 0.73 seconds.
In that 0.73 seconds the payload would accelerate to 3 kms/sec The continuous acceleration would be 3000/9.8/0.73= 417 Gs. That is sure a lot of Gs. Much more than the 3.2 the shuttle produces.
Every business model in their list has been done by many software companies and the process to obtain the license is standard practice. How can anyone patent something like this?
It is not injectable as it is a solid and does require surgery to implant. During manufacture it is a liquid but only at very high temperatures.
The glass is uses a a substitute for metal rods and plates not casts. These plates and rods hold unstable bones and bone fragments into position so they can heal correctly. For partial or many simple breaks they are not used. Even with these plates or rods implanted the patient needs a cast to completely immobilize the injury.
There is a simple solution to the calcium issue, if it exists. Prescribe calcium supplements to offset the loss due to the magnesium.
You were probably finished growing when the plate was added. If not, the plate could restrict your growth or even detach from the bone.
This is a perfect example of why IT rules do not get followed. Even firing a few people for infraction probably would not work. Most people would think "No one would get fired for such a minor issue. I bet that was just an excuse. There must be some other reason." Even if it did work, the only people who would be effected by it would be in the same office as the person fired. Possibly effective for a single office company; not so good for a large company (or are you suggesting firing someone from every office before the message gets through). What is wrong with giving out a little extra information so that people understand the reason behind the rule?
"Use a strong password and don't write it down, or someone can masquerade as you, you will be blamed for their actions and you'll get fired."
"Don't plug your own USB key into a company computer, or our network could be infected by a virus costing thousands of $ and you'll get fired."
"Don't surf porn sites on your company laptop, or we could be sued for sexual harassment costing us thousands of $ and you'll get fired."
Would you rather have users think "stupid rule, screw it" or "Now I understand, I better follow it".
BTW, "don't be stupid" is not a valid AUP clause. An AUP is a legal document the will be referred to in any wrongful dismissal suit. "Don't be stupid" is vague and open to interpretation and would not hold up in court. It relies on the company being able to prove that the employee knew something was stupid and did it anyway; extremely difficult at best.
You do not have to explain the technology; you have to explain the consequences.
For example; To explain the need for strong passwords and not writing them down on a piece of paper next to your computer. "If someone figured out or found your password they could log into our system and as far as the system is concerned they would be you. Do you really want to be blamed for something someone else did?"
Yes, it is complicated. It is also understandable if enough information is given to the users. The standard IT responses of "it's company policy" and "just do it" do not cut it in an intelligent workplace. Sure you want users to follow the rules but giving real reasons why might just raise compliance.
A slippery slope argument is defined as "Doing A is not bad but could lead to be which is bad". Conversely if doing A is bad then it is not a slippery slope argument.
What ever is bad now should be argued on the current facts; not what could possibly happen under different circumstances.
Slippery slope arguments are not valid. Not doing something now because something else bad could happen under different circumstances in the future is not a logical argument. If there ever was a proposal to secretly track speeding offenders and ticket them based on that secret tracking then would be the time to object.
The main point here I think is that if a judge will sign a warrant the the right to privacy for that individual is null and void.
That would be true if the statement was "there is no published scientific proof" but that is not the case.
The test is to prove that there is no published or unpublished scientific documentation.
I was talking about LEDs not CFLs. The CFLs have improved quite a bit and I use them. LEDs, I am not sure about
Any test for God that can not find God could be written off as God, if he exists, not wanting to participate in the test.
As for unanswered prayers, surely God doesn't have to grant everyone's wish; existence is different than effectiveness.
The statement "there is no scientific proof" is not provable; it is only disprovable by presenting the scientific proof. Proving absence is very difficult; e.g prove there is no god.
The mercury release caused by burning coal (burning coal releases quite a bit of mercury into the air) to produce the extra energy to run an incandescent for a year is more than the mercury contained in one CF.
Should CFs be disposed of properly? Yes.
Is one broken CF a hazmat issue? No.
CFs use $3 yr more power than the LED (13W instead of 6.9W) and you need 2 of them for 20 years so the cost would be 3*19 +2*2 = $65; still more than the $40 cost of the bulb.
A 13W CFL is equivalent to a 60W incandescent so the 6.9W LED is still almost half of the CFL load.
My main problem with LEDs that I have seen is that their light is to cold and white. It hurts my eyes and causes migraines. I didn't see a temperature quoted in the article.
I disagree;
Though it will not kill the bacteria it will wash many of them out of the shower head which is just as good.
Only if I was stupid enough to go to a store that only sold printers to Jews. The tag is assigned at the manufacturer and there is no control over where it goes after that. These tags are used to find where something is printed not to classify who is printing.
Seems you don't read the news much lately. There was another plot to blow up planes recently broken up in England. It is not a once every 200 year event. There is no "essential liberty" involved in plotting to kill people.
I am also not talking about the world class events. What about the plot to hold up a bank? Would you like to be the police officer telling the wife of a dead guard "We knew they were planning a robbery but we couldn't listen to their phone conversations and had no idea which bank they would hit or when. I am sorry your husband was killed".
The main flaw in your argument is the premise that we either watch everything or we watch nothing. I agree that cameras in one's house and blind wiretapping is going too far. On the other hand when there is credible evidence that something illegal is going on and a warrant is issued then go ahead and watch.
I just noticed that the past paragraph states "Algaeus only runs on a 5% blend of algae fuel". Basically only 1.25 gallons of algae fuel will be used. The rest of the energy will come from conventional fossil fuels and the electrical grid. Not much of a big advancement.
Back to the MPG debate when dealing with electric/hybrid vehicles. Any time one take electricity from the grid, which this car does through the plug, that energy is not counted in the MPG. This makes MPG rating suspect at best. It also merely shifts the carbon load to the electricity plants rather then the vehicle causing the carbon footprint to be distorted.
The yellow star has the issue of marking someone for discrimination.
The police search is an invasion of privacy in that someone else gets to look at my stuff and how I live.
The only time my printer being tagged will be useful is if I do something wrong.
There are big differences.