If there were no copper left then they would stop. Until then, if the risk is virtually nil, even if you have to cut 10 lines to find one copper one it will still be worth it. If there was a high enough chance of getting caught, then increasing the proportion of fiber would eventually be a deterrent. So the only real solution is some method of prevention or prosecution.
How about an anti-theft system that, when it detects tampering, it disconnects the communication equipment and throws on 10,000 volts? That might work as a deterrent, at the very least it would justify a "danger high voltage" sign on communication lines. Only problem is then everything would need 10,000-volt rated insulation.
Half the time you can't see the full url on a widescreen monitor. But at least you can always see what domain you are on (barring Unicode homograms), I would like it if there was a popup in the bottom of my phone browser showing just the domain--maybe even with Unicode spoofs highlighted. They could really innovate with that feature. Or they could leave their "shiny" interface the way it is and not worry about people being stupid.
I'm assuming it's possible to turn on the address bar, right? Because if they actually prevent people from trying to be smart about it, THEN they are being unreasonable.
Thank you for an awesome example. What's even better is that with a Braille screen, even if the guy looks over your shoulder he won't see "$500" pop up. It would probably freak him out.
Not only every N days, but M times, where M equals the number of different bacteria you want an immune response against. Which is presumably all of them.
When is someone going to make a "universal dirt" vaccine, consisting of a huge variety of common bacteria? That can go along with the vegetable-simulating vitamin pills and exercise simulating machines and everything else. It'll be great for when we're all living in sterile space stations. Kinda pointless right now.
You're absolutely right, but still. It makes me wonder how many people there are who don't even realize it's a closed platform, and live in blissful ignorance of the fact that "Android Magazine" even exists. And I don't think Apple really advertises "we censor all the apps you can use" as a feature, which is why people are annoyed when they find out about it after locking themselves into a contract (making the free market useless). I do not own a smartphone at all, so I will stop bitching for the moment.
So basically, it's all the fault of the suckers who bought the phones when they didn't realize or didn't care that the content they can use is hand-picked according their corporate overlords' selfish interests. There is no reason whatsoever that I should feel free to do what I want with my own hardware, because that's not what their business model is. If I don't like not owning hardware I paid for, then I should sell it and buy a different phone.
Sounds like the same argument for moving to Mexico if you think the US policies on (for example) food safety are too strict. Sometimes people prefer to complain in the hopes that the 10% of things they don't like will be fixed, rather than ditching it for a platform with those disputed features but missing lots of other things.
I'd heard that with the advent of voice synthesizers and computers, Braille was going out of favor. But if this works, it could be a better experience than a computer yapping at you while you surf the web, and make smartphones usable in quiet places.
I'm pretty sure you're underestimating the tenacity of the DEA. But you're probably right--they won't start doing that 'til they get embarrassed for busting a couple of electric cars.
In some areas (not all), operating a natural gas fuel cell can be cheaper per kWh than utility power. But if your goal is to actually reduce emissions (as opposed to saving money in our hyper-subsidized oil market) then yes, it could make sense. Possibly more sense than spending thousands of dollars per home upgrading the distribution infrastructure.
I always understood that they use it because due to the weight of a whole train, it's next to impossible to build a transmission for the diesel.
Electrical motors can exert near max torque at 0 rpm, gas/diesel engines can't.
Exactly. That's why there were basically no mechanical diesel road engines, ever, and why steam engines worked at all--they could provide max torque at 0 rpm too.
(2) Until recently the size, cost and efficiency of electric transmissions (including motors, generators, and control electronics) have made it impractical to include all of them plus a gas engine in vehicles much smaller than railway locomotives.
Thanks for the link--that's really cool! I never knew that hybrids even existed in 1899, probably because they were too expensive and bulky to mass-produce. So I think my point is still valid, but it's amazing what people did back then.
It would be absolutely perfect if we were a nocturnal society and charged our electric cars during the day. As it stands, putting up solar panels for your electric car is going to be rather expensive because you need a battery bank 2-3x larger than normal to charge the car overnight. Just putting up solar panels that "add to the grid" all day won't cut it, because the problem is the instantaneous load on the distribution lines in the evening when charging. Only *totally* local power is going to relieve that.
But that's also easy for the DEA to check--does this guy have an electric car registered to his name? No? Okay then... Yes? Does he actually drive it or does it sit in his garage all the time, even though it looks like he charges it every night? I see...
Actually, you might want to check out Home Fuel Cells. They're being pushed by a number of companies as backup or primary power solutions. They usually generate power at your home using natural gas, but without burning it, so the emissions are pretty clean and since gas is cheap it's affordable too. If you installed one along with your electric car, then you would have no problem with excess grid demand.
It would be much harder to meet the demand with home solar or wind, since you'd essentially need to charge and discharge your deep cell batteries every single day.
(1) Railway locomotives don't use electric transmissions because they're efficient. They use them because it is physically impossible (or at least impractical) to build a 44,000 hp mechanical transmission into a moving vehicle.
(2) Until recently the size, cost and efficiency of electric transmissions (including motors, generators, and control electronics) have made it impractical to include all of them plus a gas engine in vehicles much smaller than railway locomotives.
(3) The Volt actually does exactly what you are talking about--the gas engine is undersized, and when the battery is low, it runs the generator to exactly match the demand of the drive motor. The only exception is when you go faster than 65 mph, where a clutch engages and the gas engine drives the wheels directly--but only because at that speed the gas engine is already at its peak efficiency point and using the electric transmission would be a waste. The reason the Volt has batteries (for regenerative braking and precharging) is because you don't gain that much just by using an electric transmission.
Roadrunner will have more success now that his target is wearing a government-issued GPS tracking collar. Those ACME homing missiles will be much more effective.
The time for NASA to do a proper trade study was ten to fifteen years ago. A well designed, well thought out replacement for the shuttle should be in the final testing phases, not in the preliminary design phase.
You're absolutely right. But blame Congress for refusing to fund it while the shuttle was operating. NASA was basically forced to retire the shuttle to free up money to build its replacement.
But regardless of what should have happened, I hope you're not suggesting that we replace the poorly-thought-out shuttle with yet another poorly-thought-out rocket by skipping any kind of engineering rigor. It is a false economy in time and money to shoehorn existing technology into the wrong application, and I for one don't want to see NASA's capabilities crippled by another inefficient deathtrap of a rocket.
The problem isn't that they perform to spec (after a major redesign prompted by am avoidable disaster). The problem is that the specs suck, so even with a "flawless" track record they should not be blindly accepted for a new design. Compared to the safety, performance, and probably even (programmatic) cost of a similar-sized liquid-fuel engine, the liquid rocket wins hands-down. NASA is trying to a proper trade study, an absolute necessity in any project, and ATK knows they will lose unless they get Congress to tie NASA's hands behind its back.
I see it come up in new projects all the time: Managers say "They did that on XYZ mission, we can just do it again!" and the engineers who did it say "Are you crazy? Sure, we did it once, but we never want to do it again!" And when the managers put it through anyways, they waste the first half of the budget trying the old solution, and then completely redesign it in the remaining time (or not) and the project is over budget and behind schedule.
That's why I am so heartened by the success of SpaceX--they actually had the guts to design a rocket from the ground up, taking all the right lessons from past missions without kowtowing to "heritage" designs or requirements. One of those lessons was don't mess with solid rocket boosters.
Yes, everything has them. Even not enacting any regulation at all has them, like monopolies abusing their powers to stifle competition and drive up prices. Or in this case, huge insurance premiums because there are no rules shielding them from random litigation.
Licensing and regulations should only come into being after a problem is identified, and then address that problem.
Are you suggesting we start regulating commercial reentries after the first space tourists get blown out of the sky by a missile defense system? That's why they're developing the rules now, so they can identify the problem before it becomes a problem.
But why the enforcement of staying with current contracts? It stinks of the lobbying parent describes. More from TFA:
Very fishy indeed. No need to put that into the law: for starters, a contract is a contract and is supposed to be respected from both sides. Breaking contracts should only be done in special cases. No need to put that again in a law.
The law is telling them to extend current contracts beyond their original length, not merely honor their present obligations. And given the fuzzy language in the bill, NASA is under no obligation to do so if there are enough valid technical and safety reasons, which there are.
NASA should go for a technology which is best for the job. Besides this is a new project, for new technology, so whether existing tech can be used right away well that's not so sure of course. Logically NASA should go with the tried and tested stuff, again no need to put this in the law.
Tried and true, yes, but tried and failed should be dropped without hesitation. The solid rocket boosters were never a good idea, and there is zero reason to continue using them when we have so many tried and true liquid rockets around.
lol, how exactly is this flamebait? I just wanted point out that there was another similar acronym already in use. Offtopic I could understand, but flamebait surprised me.
While those kind of people do exist (and thanks for the laugh), the GP is not one of them. He said he could tell the difference--but wanted to reiterate TFA's statement that on-board audio is passable even though it is bested by a low-cost upgrade.
Slashdot Mirror
If there were no copper left then they would stop. Until then, if the risk is virtually nil, even if you have to cut 10 lines to find one copper one it will still be worth it. If there was a high enough chance of getting caught, then increasing the proportion of fiber would eventually be a deterrent. So the only real solution is some method of prevention or prosecution.
How about an anti-theft system that, when it detects tampering, it disconnects the communication equipment and throws on 10,000 volts? That might work as a deterrent, at the very least it would justify a "danger high voltage" sign on communication lines. Only problem is then everything would need 10,000-volt rated insulation.
Half the time you can't see the full url on a widescreen monitor. But at least you can always see what domain you are on (barring Unicode homograms), I would like it if there was a popup in the bottom of my phone browser showing just the domain--maybe even with Unicode spoofs highlighted. They could really innovate with that feature. Or they could leave their "shiny" interface the way it is and not worry about people being stupid.
I'm assuming it's possible to turn on the address bar, right? Because if they actually prevent people from trying to be smart about it, THEN they are being unreasonable.
Thank you for an awesome example. What's even better is that with a Braille screen, even if the guy looks over your shoulder he won't see "$500" pop up. It would probably freak him out.
Not only every N days, but M times, where M equals the number of different bacteria you want an immune response against. Which is presumably all of them.
When is someone going to make a "universal dirt" vaccine, consisting of a huge variety of common bacteria? That can go along with the vegetable-simulating vitamin pills and exercise simulating machines and everything else. It'll be great for when we're all living in sterile space stations. Kinda pointless right now.
You're absolutely right, but still. It makes me wonder how many people there are who don't even realize it's a closed platform, and live in blissful ignorance of the fact that "Android Magazine" even exists. And I don't think Apple really advertises "we censor all the apps you can use" as a feature, which is why people are annoyed when they find out about it after locking themselves into a contract (making the free market useless). I do not own a smartphone at all, so I will stop bitching for the moment.
So basically, it's all the fault of the suckers who bought the phones when they didn't realize or didn't care that the content they can use is hand-picked according their corporate overlords' selfish interests. There is no reason whatsoever that I should feel free to do what I want with my own hardware, because that's not what their business model is. If I don't like not owning hardware I paid for, then I should sell it and buy a different phone.
Sounds like the same argument for moving to Mexico if you think the US policies on (for example) food safety are too strict. Sometimes people prefer to complain in the hopes that the 10% of things they don't like will be fixed, rather than ditching it for a platform with those disputed features but missing lots of other things.
I'd heard that with the advent of voice synthesizers and computers, Braille was going out of favor. But if this works, it could be a better experience than a computer yapping at you while you surf the web, and make smartphones usable in quiet places.
I'm pretty sure you're underestimating the tenacity of the DEA. But you're probably right--they won't start doing that 'til they get embarrassed for busting a couple of electric cars.
In some areas (not all), operating a natural gas fuel cell can be cheaper per kWh than utility power. But if your goal is to actually reduce emissions (as opposed to saving money in our hyper-subsidized oil market) then yes, it could make sense. Possibly more sense than spending thousands of dollars per home upgrading the distribution infrastructure.
I always understood that they use it because due to the weight of a whole train, it's next to impossible to build a transmission for the diesel.
Electrical motors can exert near max torque at 0 rpm, gas/diesel engines can't.
Exactly. That's why there were basically no mechanical diesel road engines, ever, and why steam engines worked at all--they could provide max torque at 0 rpm too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche_Mixte_Hybrid
Thanks for the link--that's really cool! I never knew that hybrids even existed in 1899, probably because they were too expensive and bulky to mass-produce. So I think my point is still valid, but it's amazing what people did back then.
It would be absolutely perfect if we were a nocturnal society and charged our electric cars during the day. As it stands, putting up solar panels for your electric car is going to be rather expensive because you need a battery bank 2-3x larger than normal to charge the car overnight. Just putting up solar panels that "add to the grid" all day won't cut it, because the problem is the instantaneous load on the distribution lines in the evening when charging. Only *totally* local power is going to relieve that.
But that's also easy for the DEA to check--does this guy have an electric car registered to his name? No? Okay then... Yes? Does he actually drive it or does it sit in his garage all the time, even though it looks like he charges it every night? I see...
Actually, you might want to check out Home Fuel Cells. They're being pushed by a number of companies as backup or primary power solutions. They usually generate power at your home using natural gas, but without burning it, so the emissions are pretty clean and since gas is cheap it's affordable too. If you installed one along with your electric car, then you would have no problem with excess grid demand.
It would be much harder to meet the demand with home solar or wind, since you'd essentially need to charge and discharge your deep cell batteries every single day.
I'll give you some reasons.
(1) Railway locomotives don't use electric transmissions because they're efficient. They use them because it is physically impossible (or at least impractical) to build a 44,000 hp mechanical transmission into a moving vehicle.
(2) Until recently the size, cost and efficiency of electric transmissions (including motors, generators, and control electronics) have made it impractical to include all of them plus a gas engine in vehicles much smaller than railway locomotives.
(3) The Volt actually does exactly what you are talking about--the gas engine is undersized, and when the battery is low, it runs the generator to exactly match the demand of the drive motor. The only exception is when you go faster than 65 mph, where a clutch engages and the gas engine drives the wheels directly--but only because at that speed the gas engine is already at its peak efficiency point and using the electric transmission would be a waste. The reason the Volt has batteries (for regenerative braking and precharging) is because you don't gain that much just by using an electric transmission.
It's not a new idea, but not one that's been put into practice yet as far as I know.
Glad to see they're growing up a bit. I was starting to think they'd be sucking their mother's tits forever at this rate.
Then we should all be sure to pirate as much as possible before that happens, so we can save the music for later generations!
Roadrunner will have more success now that his target is wearing a government-issued GPS tracking collar. Those ACME homing missiles will be much more effective.
The time for NASA to do a proper trade study was ten to fifteen years ago. A well designed, well thought out replacement for the shuttle should be in the final testing phases, not in the preliminary design phase.
You're absolutely right. But blame Congress for refusing to fund it while the shuttle was operating. NASA was basically forced to retire the shuttle to free up money to build its replacement.
But regardless of what should have happened, I hope you're not suggesting that we replace the poorly-thought-out shuttle with yet another poorly-thought-out rocket by skipping any kind of engineering rigor. It is a false economy in time and money to shoehorn existing technology into the wrong application, and I for one don't want to see NASA's capabilities crippled by another inefficient deathtrap of a rocket.
The problem isn't that they perform to spec (after a major redesign prompted by am avoidable disaster). The problem is that the specs suck, so even with a "flawless" track record they should not be blindly accepted for a new design. Compared to the safety, performance, and probably even (programmatic) cost of a similar-sized liquid-fuel engine, the liquid rocket wins hands-down. NASA is trying to a proper trade study, an absolute necessity in any project, and ATK knows they will lose unless they get Congress to tie NASA's hands behind its back.
I see it come up in new projects all the time: Managers say "They did that on XYZ mission, we can just do it again!" and the engineers who did it say "Are you crazy? Sure, we did it once, but we never want to do it again!" And when the managers put it through anyways, they waste the first half of the budget trying the old solution, and then completely redesign it in the remaining time (or not) and the project is over budget and behind schedule.
That's why I am so heartened by the success of SpaceX--they actually had the guts to design a rocket from the ground up, taking all the right lessons from past missions without kowtowing to "heritage" designs or requirements. One of those lessons was don't mess with solid rocket boosters.
Ever hear of the unintended consequences?
Yes, everything has them. Even not enacting any regulation at all has them, like monopolies abusing their powers to stifle competition and drive up prices. Or in this case, huge insurance premiums because there are no rules shielding them from random litigation.
Licensing and regulations should only come into being after a problem is identified, and then address that problem.
Are you suggesting we start regulating commercial reentries after the first space tourists get blown out of the sky by a missile defense system? That's why they're developing the rules now, so they can identify the problem before it becomes a problem.
But why the enforcement of staying with current contracts? It stinks of the lobbying parent describes. More from TFA:
Very fishy indeed. No need to put that into the law: for starters, a contract is a contract and is supposed to be respected from both sides. Breaking contracts should only be done in special cases. No need to put that again in a law.
The law is telling them to extend current contracts beyond their original length, not merely honor their present obligations. And given the fuzzy language in the bill, NASA is under no obligation to do so if there are enough valid technical and safety reasons, which there are.
NASA should go for a technology which is best for the job. Besides this is a new project, for new technology, so whether existing tech can be used right away well that's not so sure of course. Logically NASA should go with the tried and tested stuff, again no need to put this in the law.
Tried and true, yes, but tried and failed should be dropped without hesitation. The solid rocket boosters were never a good idea, and there is zero reason to continue using them when we have so many tried and true liquid rockets around.
lol, how exactly is this flamebait? I just wanted point out that there was another similar acronym already in use. Offtopic I could understand, but flamebait surprised me.
While those kind of people do exist (and thanks for the laugh), the GP is not one of them. He said he could tell the difference--but wanted to reiterate TFA's statement that on-board audio is passable even though it is bested by a low-cost upgrade.
If you found a buried metal detector with a metal detector...would the universe implode?
No...but then he'd have one for each hand! Double the nerdiness!