Was it signed or unsigned? If it's signed, then it may very well be able to resolve a negative number of days since 9/27/2173. What's the significance of that, anyway?
If the system uses a signed long integer for date and 1/1/1970 as the base, then it dies in 2038 (1970 + 68 years). If it's unsigned then it gets till 2106 (1970 + 136 years). If we switch to 64-bit systems and integers then it would last nearly to the 5,850,000th century.
It was designed for low altitude, risky missions. It was designed with two engines, so if one got shot-off, it could still fly. Dual rudders, both for the same redundancy purpose, and also to block IR emissions from the engine's tailpipes as viewed from the side. It was also designed to be able to fly with half a wing blown off.
Too bad that two-headed kitten didn't live long. Would have been cool seeing that thing as an adult. I have seen a 6 legged cow, but the extra two weren't exactly usable. There was, I think, a two-headed snake that did quite well.
ever seen those walking toys that fall on their side and can't do anything? they'd have to work that out)
It loks like the center of mass for this thing is low enough that anything that could tip it over on its side would be enough to give a wheeled/treaded vehicle problems too. I think the big problem would be keeping the legs moving correctly if they're going at a high rate of speed. Wheels and treads are nice because they're so simple. Round and round and that's it.
Psychological effects of weapons are cool, but they don't last long. Familiarity breeds contempt, and so forth. So unless it's inherent in the design (like it is here:), one shouldn't really spend much effort towards that end.
Interesting. I sketched out a similar tactic for creating legal precedent that EULA's aren't worth crap. The EULA's are easier since it doesn't have to go to the Supreme Court, but it's still an interesting idea. Expensive as hell, though.
Has anyone ever done this before? Arranged a lawsuit with a 'conspirator' in order to put the law on trial before the Supreme Court?
Why? I'm not happy with Adobe becuase they withdrew support for Dmitri's prosecution. Why should I be thanking them for _graciously_ deciding, after doing something rude, stupid, and malicious, not to do something really rude, stupid and malicious? I say fuck'em. You trot out the DMCA, you are my nemesis, plain and simple.
Changing IMEIs = destruction of evidence. The only realistic way of identifying a phone is by it's IMEI
So tell the phone companies to make a better way of tracking the phone. Quit trying to get cops to pick up the slack, they've got their hands full as it is.
A car theif steals a car. They take it to a garage who respray it and remove the VIN and replace it with the VIN of a car of the same model that was involved in an accident. The car is then resold. Under British law the garge is equally culpable as the theif who stole the car.
But what are they culpable of? Painting a car? Scratching off a piece of metal? Certainly very heinous acts. They should be illegal since there's no good reason for an individual to do so.
The crimes here are stealing a car and altering it without the owner's permission. What this bill proposes is to make altering the car, no matter what the circumstances, illegal. Picking someone else's deadbolt is illegal, but owning a pair of lockpicks and practicing with them (without incurring a B&E charge, that is) is not. The circumstances surrounding the act make it illegal, not the act itself. To make an act criminal purely as a matter of convenience? How atrocious is that?
This is yet another page in the "Tools that facilitate crimes are themselves criminal" legal text that somehow manages to get inordinately applied to things related to computers. Odd, that.
Outside of the manufacturers and, possibly, a small number of researchers there isn't really any legal reason why you would want or need to change the IMEI of a phone. It makes for a far more effective and suitable system to make the act illegal ingeneral but make exceptions for those who do have a valid and legitimate reason to do it
Unacceptable. 1: Lack of a good reason to do something is not enough to make it illegal. It must be shown to be harmful. The sheer number of stupid and despicably bad laws on the books that failed to do so attests to this. Your reference to the illegality of drugs is a fine example. Why are they illegal in the first place? I have yet to hear a logical and coherent explanation that isn't hypocritical beyond belief. 2: Exceptions to a law based on having 'valid and legitimate reasons' is a fine idea, but they have a worrisome tendency to be either abused or ignored based mostly on the pocket depth of the accused. Witness the DMCA. Or cancer patients growing marijuana and getting arrested for it. Law is a game for the rich to play. The rest of us are kinda fucked if we end up on the wrong side of a bad law.
Besides, there is utterly no reason to think that making phone hacking illegal will stem the tide. History suggests exactly the opposite. Once organizations that do this work become illegal, any doing it for whatever legit reasons there might have been will dry up while the remainder will simply go 'underground', hindering criminals not one bit but making it even harder for cops to watch them.
On a side note, you have no idea (well, being on/. you probably do) how much I appreciate your remaining very civil in this discussion. Thank you. Most of the other people responding to my posts started with insults and went downhill from there. I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but damn....
Of course it is. Trafficking in stolen goods is, last time I checked, a crime. Now if the authorities are unable to prove that, how do they propose to prove that the IMEI has been changed? At least now the businesses are in the open and can be watched. This bill will serve only to drive them underground where it will criminals not one bit.
So setting the ID to match someone else's phone is perfectly ok?
Explain to me why simply changing the number should be illegal. Charging calls to their account, certainly. Identity theft, fraud, whatever. But simply changing the number? What is so inherently wrong about it that it needs to be illegal?
The laws are semiarbitrary.
"Do not harm others." Laws that base themselves on that do pretty good. It's why murder, theft, assault, rape, even libel and counterfeiting are all illegal. One party is clearly being harmed by another and can show it.
"Just because." Laws that base themselves on this principle, or the quasi-Hipocratic one above without actually establishing that harm is being done, include such shining examples of legality as laws against homosexuality, the War on Drugs, laws against suicide, laws against sex with a consenting adult, or laws against watching the DVD you bought on the player that you bought. (odds are, you are affected by at least one of those) Proponents of these laws like to gloss over the whole 'justify the wrongness of the act', much as you are doing.
Incidentally, speeding is illegal because while you may own the car, you do not own the road. Build your own road on your own property and race on it as much as you like. But by your logic, "the number of illegimate uses of speeding a car overwhelms the legimitate uses so much", that speeding for any reason (your own road, medical emergency, NASCAR races, whatever) should require a capital punishment. But of course, you don't care about that, do you?
they can always change the law
How many laws were repealed last year becuase they were found to be stupid or no longer applicable? Almost none. Politicians do not like to undo laws, they much prefer to make new ones. About the only reason that would motivate them to repeal one would be a cure for cancer. "Let's try it and see how many innocent people's lives it destroys before the courts smack it down" is a very poor way to find the kinks in a law.
I simply don't care
Then get lost and leave the discussion to people who actually think freedom and keeping our government in check is important.
You might like to grow up, you come over like a real spoilt brat. Go back to sucking your thumb after you've cried to your mommy about this law you hate so much, maybe that will help you feel better about how unfair it all is.
When you've grown up a bit and can actually hold an intelligent discussion without dropping back into kindergarten level insults, then maybe you could get someone to listen to you. Until then, good riddens.
Without the businesses changing the ID numbers the violent thugs who steal the phones wouldn't have a market
Oh, kind of like how making drugs illegal deprives foreign drug cartels of local markets?
Firstly I wouldn't describe the businesses doing this as 'Reasonably Legal'
in the same way as drug enforcement targets the relatively few importers and distributors rather than the many street dealers
Yeah, and look how well that's worked out here in the States. Let's see, the world's highest incarceration rate, crime rates even higher due to addicts needing money to pay the high prices, cartels getting rich and driving their countries into the ground because of all the inflated profits, lots of perfectly useful applications made illegal as well, all to try and keep people from getting coked up and hurting others? Besides, it's not even valid comparison; dealers and cartels are all 'guilty' of committing the same 'crime', that of trafficking in narcotics. In this situation, the crime is mugging people (definitely bad) but the techies are fiddling with gadgets. Are the phones theirs? If so, leave them alone. If not, nab them for dealing in stolen property. Can't using existing laws to find any evidence of wrongdoing? Then why such a hard-on to start throwing people in jail? You do not need another new law that simply makes some totally harmless activity illegal.
What, precisely, is wrong with modifying the IMEI? Not when it is done in conjunction with another crime. What, by itself, is wrong with it? Anything?
Anyway, why the heck are you so bothered? Been making money off this scam have we? Scared you'll get caught and banged up? Are you ignorant, crooked or stupid- which?
Oh, my, I am in awe of your brilliantly thought out ad hominem arguments. The greatest debaters in history should bow down before your obvious skill. Teach us, o great one, so that we may learn to prove points by insulting others as well as you are able to. Or rather, go fuck yourself.
It's for reducing the number of people doing this; thicko, either because the cost/benefit ratio will be worse, or because they'll make less profit after having to pay more to the people willing to do this change to a phone, so the thieves will make less profit. Sure, they can try to steal more, but then the chances of getting caught goes up in proportion...
Gee, summarily executing suspects would probably increase the cost-benefit ratio too, but nobody thinks that's a good idea.
What possible legitimate reason would you have for fiddling with this number
I am not under any obligation to justify my actions to you. You are under every obligation to justify your objection to them to me. In this case, it's about tinkering with a piece of electronics in my possession. If it's not mine, doing so is already illegal. If it is mine, there's utterly no reason why it should be illegal.
you'll note the law does not stop you fiddling with any other parts of the phone
Today. What about the one they pass tomorrow making it illegal to modify it other ways? If someone came up with an ingenious use for modifying modifying the IMEI after the law was passed, do you think they'd repeal it or just start throwing people in jail for doing it?
I'm against this law because it's my phone and that modifying it as I see fit is not wrong. Explain to me why it is wrong. That real criminals use it to their advantage is irrelevant. Real criminals use pawn shops and foreign banks and investments to their advantage, why aren't they illegal as well? Handguns serve no other purpose than to hurt people and criminals use them all the time, yet they are legal. Getting rid of them might very well decrease the crime rate associated with them, yet nobody does. What's so special about computers and electronics that I'm only allowed to do what someone tells me I can do?
The 15/1 weight difference between rockets & jets is a direct cite from a post by henry spencer in sci.space.tech. You want a specific cite, ask henry
Excuse me? You ask me for proof and I cite four references. I ask you for proof and you tell me, "Go see Bob. Bob knows all."?
Scramjets cannot replace rockets
And you know this how? Oh, right, Henry told you.
Nice links. None of them give proof of a real-world scramjet showing positive thrust, though. You tried to point out that scramjets are 3X more efficient than rockets.
You are unbelievable. So because the second working prototype doesn't outperform the technology that has had billions dumped into it already, you say, "Throw it away"?
Furthermore, there has been a scramjet test that produced net acceleration. Exhibit A. Not much, but it worked.
[Scramjets can't not accelerate]
Drag does decrease the higher you go. I realize that with anything air-breathing, that also limits your thrust, but it does allow for higher speeds. And I'm not suggesting they try to reach orbital velocity in the atmosphere. I'm well aware that it's stupid to try with air around anyway. Rocket assists can be used for the last bit.
scramjets have materiel limits imposed on them that rockets do not
I think fuel qualifies as a material. Rockets have fuel efficiency limits imposed on them that scramjets do not, at least not to the low level of rockets.
Do you contend that systems failures will dissapear because scramjets are used?
Rockets just don't scale well. Sure, for fireworks (or adding the last 1 or 2 kps to a launch vehicle) they're fine. But if you want to rocket any significant payload, especially to orbit, the mass of the fuel has to exceed the mass of the payload by orders of magnitude. You're right, cost of fuel isn't a problem, but mass and space is. To make a rocket vehicle capable carrying enough fuel to get to orbit and the fuel needed to get this huge mass of fuel up(true for even scramjets, but less fuel and oxidizer), it's gotta be absolutely huge. And insanely complex. And expensive. Chemical rockets are about as fuel efficient as they will ever get. Find the cheapest per-kilo rocket-based booster we've ever built and that's about it. A scramjet, needing less fuel, doesn't have to be built to even close to the same scale and can end up being simpler. Simpler systems usually mean less systems failures. Also, rockets are fairly unique regarding guidance in that your thrust is taking place entirely at the bottom of the vehicle. This is not just a 'systems failure'. This is a fundamental, inescapable problem of rockets that makes guidance very difficult, and therefore more failure-prone than something that is air-breathing and thrusts from closer to the center of mass.
Scramjets can be better than rockets. That we don't have a working orbit-capable one yet is irrelevant. We know this because aerospace engineers are bright guys and have done the math.
You propose spending billions to "solve" reliability problems in rockets by using scramjets made out of unobtainium.
Never said anything of the sort. I said that rockets were nowhere near as efficient as scramjets and that rockets suck for getting to orbit. I've provided links for the former and today's $10k/kilo pricetag on launches demonstrates the latter. Will scramjets be cheaper? If we can get them to work, the theory says they will be. No way to know for sure without trying.
I'd prefer spending the money on something with a reasonable chance of being useful and feasible
I'm all for it. But the guys with money have spent 50 years putting everything into rockets. That they are even considering something else is an achievement. Laser boosters, beanstalks, whatever. Never said that scramjets were the best, simply that, if they can be made to get to orbit, they'll likely do so more cheaply than any straight-up rocket launcher. I have explained why rockets are so pitiful. I realize the materials problem for scramjets is really, really difficult. But hey, so were the problems with rockets.
Lastly, NASA is the one that spends billions of dollars on programs. Hyshot put this thing together for 1 million. Not exactly chump change, but NASA's test was many times more than that and they have yet to try again.
changing the phone to allow it to steal airtime off a company
That's already a crime. What, then, is this law for?
allow the crook to sell the phone off and make profit from their violent crimes
Violent crimes are, surprise, surprise, already crimes. What, then, is this law for?
If you want to hack your own phone- frankly, the chances of getting caught are really tiny- go ahead knock yourself out.
So we are supposed to ignore it!?!?! Just what on earth is this law for?
Probably not as good; but might work.
The alternative is this abortion of a law which will not work at all. I fail to see how punishing actual violent criminals will work still less.
The young thugs that do the stealing probably aren't the ones that do the reprocessing.
So in other words, the law intentionally does not do anything about violent criminals, but is instead going after 'reasonably legal' businesses? Well that's fantastic, since as we all know, illegal businesses (that would totally ignore this law, and therefore let young thugs continue cashing in on the phones) can't possibly exist, right?
Good rocket engines weigh about 1/15 as much as jet engines with similar sea-level thrust & scramjets weigh even more than jets.
Regarding jet engines: got a link? Regarding scramjets: so you mean this technology they've spent billions of dollars on is further along than the one that got virtually no funding at all? What a surprise.
Terrier-Orion sounding rockets (from surplus military stocks) can be obtained on a university budget
Can you get to orbit in them?
The dev costs on scramjets are easily in the billions
And, what, orbital rockets were developed in someone's backyard on a shoestring budget? They spent billions on them, too.
Finally, who cares how much is tanking. Fuel costs are negligable compared to the rest.
What we're interested in here is mass. To get to orbit, a rocket has to take thousands of tons of oxidizer along with it. A scramjet could leave most of it behind.
(hint: they weren't. Scramjets will be subject to the same guidance problems).
What, you mean the guidance problem of having all your thrust at the very bottom of the vehicle, which is basically a requirement for rockets?
As was pointed out != as has been proven. Please point me to your real-world proofs or stop presenting "I hope" as "It has been proven".
Before stating that scramjets can accelerate to mach25 in the atmosphere you are going to have to solve the materiels problem
Gee, I seem to recall saying that very same thing. How kind of you to tell me what I already knew and act like you are all-knowing in the process.
scramjets by definition cannot [throttle back]
Eh? They have to accelerate constantly the whole time? Can't slow down, can't cruise, can't do anything except go faster? Do explain to me where you learned this.
Until then, kindly refrain from proposing theoretical yet unachievable limits.
You're the one proposing limits pal, not me.
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 2
They wouldn't all have to agree. Just half, or two thirds, depending on the situatiuon. Which, I agree, is less likely than with 450 reps, but is it that much less so?
I'm not against the idea, I'm just not convinced that it's a better one.:)
Lemme get this straight. Someone willing to commit a crime by forcibly breaking into my car and stealing it is instead going to leave me alone due entirely to the fear of the consequences of some law against scratching a number off a piece of metal? I knew criminals were dumb, but come on...
The people that this law is supposed to but behind bars are almost certainly already guilty of committing any number of crimes. Theft, trafficking in stolen goods, etc. It therefore has almost no chance of hurting guilty people more and almost every chance of hurting innocent people. To add yet another law, that is, another set of loopholes and complications to an already insanely complicated legal code, without bothering to look at the effectiveness of the ones in place, is folly.
Or, gee, lemme think real hard about this one.. you could just make stealing the phone punshiable by 10 years. Boy, you're right, that was much harder than trying to come up with a new law banning tinkering with your own gadgets.
I realize your phrasing did not exactly indicate support for this bill, merely a guess at the (twisted) logic behind it, so if the sarcasm above is misplaced, I do apologize. But really, banning activities for no other purpose than to be able to tack on time to prison sentences acquired by commiting what are already crimes is by far the dumbest way to make streets safer.
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 2
Odd way of looking at it. I had always figured that more reps was worse than few since, as you point out, they'd end up dickering forever over the slightest thing. It never even occured to me that once the costs of having a government start outweighing the benefits, that inability to make a simple decision might become a Good Thing.
Ah well, there'd still be lots of Congresscritters who'd follow the carrot right off the cliff. And it'd work both ways; how difficult would it be to get existing bad laws off the books?
As an analogy imagine this: Currently your car uses one engine to do 0-60mph. Use of scramjets is like somebody offering to add a 700lb, $3000 solar powered motor to your car so that from 10-30mph you can use solar power instead of gasoline.
What you neglect to mention is that your existing engine (i.e., the rocket) is 2000 lbs, costs $10000 to buy, must be taken into the shop every week for another $5000 worth of repairs, and is so fuel inefficient that 99% of your car is gas tank.
Rockets are working technology & the most efficient power source known to man
Rockets are barely working technology. I find it ironic that the failure of both NASA's and Australia's previous scramjet tests were due to the rocket booster screwing up. They are insanely complicated and expensive beyond all reason. And they do not even come close to being the most efficient. As was pointed out, in the atmosphere Scramjets are 3 times more efficient. Outside the atmosphere, ion drives and even a simple pulsedrive are orders of magnitude more efficient. Rockets' only saving grace is that they can be used in both.
And where'd you get the idea that scramjets peter out at mach 10? There's nothing in the theory that keeps them from going as fast as you want. Your biggest problem is that heat from air friction melts your plane at these speeds.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The big difference here is the motives of the people involved. Under capitalism, I exploit you because I think I know what's best for me. Under communism, I exploit you because I think I know what's best for you.
Not to mention Explorer's 'View as Webpage'! After getting rid of the Welcome screen and deleting extraneous desktop crap, that's the very first thing I turn off.
(5) the American intellectual property sector has invested millions of dollars to develop highly sophisticated authentication features that assist consumers and law enforcement in distinguishing genuine intellectual property products and packaging from counterfeits;
Which I would respond with: So fucking what? They sent lots of good money after bad, precisely why should the we the people spend our freedoms to get them their money back?
(6) in order to thwart these industry efforts, counterfeiters traffic in, and tamper with, genuine authentication features, for example, by obtaining genuine authentication features through illicit means and then commingling these features with counterfeit software or packaging;
Pure bullshit. Napster, Audiogalaxy, DeCSS, KaZaa, etc, never once proclaimed themselves to be legitimate distributors/authenticators of whatever it was you got from them.
Unfortunately, I, being a mere 'Consumer', must trust to the wisdom of my betters when it comes to deciding what I should and should not be allowed to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it signed or unsigned? If it's signed, then it may very well be able to resolve a negative number of days since 9/27/2173. What's the significance of that, anyway?
If the system uses a signed long integer for date and 1/1/1970 as the base, then it dies in 2038 (1970 + 68 years). If it's unsigned then it gets till 2106 (1970 + 136 years). If we switch to 64-bit systems and integers then it would last nearly to the 5,850,000th century.
I have three words in response to that:
Engineers. Kick. Ass.
Ripley's Believe It or Not, what a great place!
It loks like the center of mass for this thing is low enough that anything that could tip it over on its side would be enough to give a wheeled/treaded vehicle problems too. I think the big problem would be keeping the legs moving correctly if they're going at a high rate of speed. Wheels and treads are nice because they're so simple. Round and round and that's it.
Psychological effects of weapons are cool, but they don't last long. Familiarity breeds contempt, and so forth. So unless it's inherent in the design (like it is here :), one shouldn't really spend much effort towards that end.
And put on armor that's "too strong for blasters!". But of course you've still got to worry about harpoons and tow cables...
Has anyone ever done this before? Arranged a lawsuit with a 'conspirator' in order to put the law on trial before the Supreme Court?
No, no, no, it was _my_ strongly worded email to the CEO that did it!
Write, call, or scream, but don't let your outrage dribble away.
Indeed. It's amazing how good you feel about it after this happens. Very self-satisfying. I'll have to do that again sometime. :)
Why? I'm not happy with Adobe becuase they withdrew support for Dmitri's prosecution. Why should I be thanking them for _graciously_ deciding, after doing something rude, stupid, and malicious, not to do something really rude, stupid and malicious? I say fuck'em. You trot out the DMCA, you are my nemesis, plain and simple.
So tell the phone companies to make a better way of tracking the phone. Quit trying to get cops to pick up the slack, they've got their hands full as it is.
A car theif steals a car. They take it to a garage who respray it and remove the VIN and replace it with the VIN of a car of the same model that was involved in an accident. The car is then resold. Under British law the garge is equally culpable as the theif who stole the car.
But what are they culpable of? Painting a car? Scratching off a piece of metal? Certainly very heinous acts. They should be illegal since there's no good reason for an individual to do so.
The crimes here are stealing a car and altering it without the owner's permission. What this bill proposes is to make altering the car, no matter what the circumstances, illegal. Picking someone else's deadbolt is illegal, but owning a pair of lockpicks and practicing with them (without incurring a B&E charge, that is) is not. The circumstances surrounding the act make it illegal, not the act itself. To make an act criminal purely as a matter of convenience? How atrocious is that?
This is yet another page in the "Tools that facilitate crimes are themselves criminal" legal text that somehow manages to get inordinately applied to things related to computers. Odd, that.
Outside of the manufacturers and, possibly, a small number of researchers there isn't really any legal reason why you would want or need to change the IMEI of a phone. It makes for a far more effective and suitable system to make the act illegal ingeneral but make exceptions for those who do have a valid and legitimate reason to do it
Unacceptable. 1: Lack of a good reason to do something is not enough to make it illegal. It must be shown to be harmful. The sheer number of stupid and despicably bad laws on the books that failed to do so attests to this. Your reference to the illegality of drugs is a fine example. Why are they illegal in the first place? I have yet to hear a logical and coherent explanation that isn't hypocritical beyond belief. 2: Exceptions to a law based on having 'valid and legitimate reasons' is a fine idea, but they have a worrisome tendency to be either abused or ignored based mostly on the pocket depth of the accused. Witness the DMCA. Or cancer patients growing marijuana and getting arrested for it. Law is a game for the rich to play. The rest of us are kinda fucked if we end up on the wrong side of a bad law.
Besides, there is utterly no reason to think that making phone hacking illegal will stem the tide. History suggests exactly the opposite. Once organizations that do this work become illegal, any doing it for whatever legit reasons there might have been will dry up while the remainder will simply go 'underground', hindering criminals not one bit but making it even harder for cops to watch them.
On a side note, you have no idea (well, being on /. you probably do) how much I appreciate your remaining very civil in this discussion. Thank you. Most of the other people responding to my posts started with insults and went downhill from there. I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but damn....
Of course it is. Trafficking in stolen goods is, last time I checked, a crime. Now if the authorities are unable to prove that, how do they propose to prove that the IMEI has been changed? At least now the businesses are in the open and can be watched. This bill will serve only to drive them underground where it will criminals not one bit.
So setting the ID to match someone else's phone is perfectly ok?
Explain to me why simply changing the number should be illegal. Charging calls to their account, certainly. Identity theft, fraud, whatever. But simply changing the number? What is so inherently wrong about it that it needs to be illegal?
The laws are semiarbitrary.
"Do not harm others." Laws that base themselves on that do pretty good. It's why murder, theft, assault, rape, even libel and counterfeiting are all illegal. One party is clearly being harmed by another and can show it.
"Just because." Laws that base themselves on this principle, or the quasi-Hipocratic one above without actually establishing that harm is being done, include such shining examples of legality as laws against homosexuality, the War on Drugs, laws against suicide, laws against sex with a consenting adult, or laws against watching the DVD you bought on the player that you bought. (odds are, you are affected by at least one of those) Proponents of these laws like to gloss over the whole 'justify the wrongness of the act', much as you are doing.
Incidentally, speeding is illegal because while you may own the car, you do not own the road. Build your own road on your own property and race on it as much as you like. But by your logic, "the number of illegimate uses of speeding a car overwhelms the legimitate uses so much", that speeding for any reason (your own road, medical emergency, NASCAR races, whatever) should require a capital punishment. But of course, you don't care about that, do you?
they can always change the law
How many laws were repealed last year becuase they were found to be stupid or no longer applicable? Almost none. Politicians do not like to undo laws, they much prefer to make new ones. About the only reason that would motivate them to repeal one would be a cure for cancer. "Let's try it and see how many innocent people's lives it destroys before the courts smack it down" is a very poor way to find the kinks in a law.
I simply don't care
Then get lost and leave the discussion to people who actually think freedom and keeping our government in check is important.
You might like to grow up, you come over like a real spoilt brat. Go back to sucking your thumb after you've cried to your mommy about this law you hate so much, maybe that will help you feel better about how unfair it all is.
When you've grown up a bit and can actually hold an intelligent discussion without dropping back into kindergarten level insults, then maybe you could get someone to listen to you. Until then, good riddens.
Oh, kind of like how making drugs illegal deprives foreign drug cartels of local markets?
Firstly I wouldn't describe the businesses doing this as 'Reasonably Legal'
in the same way as drug enforcement targets the relatively few importers and distributors rather than the many street dealers
Yeah, and look how well that's worked out here in the States. Let's see, the world's highest incarceration rate, crime rates even higher due to addicts needing money to pay the high prices, cartels getting rich and driving their countries into the ground because of all the inflated profits, lots of perfectly useful applications made illegal as well, all to try and keep people from getting coked up and hurting others? Besides, it's not even valid comparison; dealers and cartels are all 'guilty' of committing the same 'crime', that of trafficking in narcotics. In this situation, the crime is mugging people (definitely bad) but the techies are fiddling with gadgets. Are the phones theirs? If so, leave them alone. If not, nab them for dealing in stolen property. Can't using existing laws to find any evidence of wrongdoing? Then why such a hard-on to start throwing people in jail? You do not need another new law that simply makes some totally harmless activity illegal.
What, precisely, is wrong with modifying the IMEI? Not when it is done in conjunction with another crime. What, by itself, is wrong with it? Anything?
Oh, my, I am in awe of your brilliantly thought out ad hominem arguments. The greatest debaters in history should bow down before your obvious skill. Teach us, o great one, so that we may learn to prove points by insulting others as well as you are able to. Or rather, go fuck yourself.
It's for reducing the number of people doing this; thicko, either because the cost/benefit ratio will be worse, or because they'll make less profit after having to pay more to the people willing to do this change to a phone, so the thieves will make less profit. Sure, they can try to steal more, but then the chances of getting caught goes up in proportion...
Gee, summarily executing suspects would probably increase the cost-benefit ratio too, but nobody thinks that's a good idea.
What possible legitimate reason would you have for fiddling with this number
I am not under any obligation to justify my actions to you. You are under every obligation to justify your objection to them to me. In this case, it's about tinkering with a piece of electronics in my possession. If it's not mine, doing so is already illegal. If it is mine, there's utterly no reason why it should be illegal.
you'll note the law does not stop you fiddling with any other parts of the phone
Today. What about the one they pass tomorrow making it illegal to modify it other ways? If someone came up with an ingenious use for modifying modifying the IMEI after the law was passed, do you think they'd repeal it or just start throwing people in jail for doing it?
I'm against this law because it's my phone and that modifying it as I see fit is not wrong. Explain to me why it is wrong. That real criminals use it to their advantage is irrelevant. Real criminals use pawn shops and foreign banks and investments to their advantage, why aren't they illegal as well? Handguns serve no other purpose than to hurt people and criminals use them all the time, yet they are legal. Getting rid of them might very well decrease the crime rate associated with them, yet nobody does. What's so special about computers and electronics that I'm only allowed to do what someone tells me I can do?
Excuse me? You ask me for proof and I cite four references. I ask you for proof and you tell me, "Go see Bob. Bob knows all."?
Scramjets cannot replace rockets
And you know this how? Oh, right, Henry told you.
Nice links. None of them give proof of a real-world scramjet showing positive thrust, though. You tried to point out that scramjets are 3X more efficient than rockets.
You are unbelievable. So because the second working prototype doesn't outperform the technology that has had billions dumped into it already, you say, "Throw it away"?
Furthermore, there has been a scramjet test that produced net acceleration. Exhibit A. Not much, but it worked.
[Scramjets can't not accelerate]
Drag does decrease the higher you go. I realize that with anything air-breathing, that also limits your thrust, but it does allow for higher speeds. And I'm not suggesting they try to reach orbital velocity in the atmosphere. I'm well aware that it's stupid to try with air around anyway. Rocket assists can be used for the last bit.
scramjets have materiel limits imposed on them that rockets do not
I think fuel qualifies as a material. Rockets have fuel efficiency limits imposed on them that scramjets do not, at least not to the low level of rockets.
Do you contend that systems failures will dissapear because scramjets are used?
Rockets just don't scale well. Sure, for fireworks (or adding the last 1 or 2 kps to a launch vehicle) they're fine. But if you want to rocket any significant payload, especially to orbit, the mass of the fuel has to exceed the mass of the payload by orders of magnitude. You're right, cost of fuel isn't a problem, but mass and space is. To make a rocket vehicle capable carrying enough fuel to get to orbit and the fuel needed to get this huge mass of fuel up(true for even scramjets, but less fuel and oxidizer), it's gotta be absolutely huge. And insanely complex. And expensive. Chemical rockets are about as fuel efficient as they will ever get. Find the cheapest per-kilo rocket-based booster we've ever built and that's about it. A scramjet, needing less fuel, doesn't have to be built to even close to the same scale and can end up being simpler. Simpler systems usually mean less systems failures. Also, rockets are fairly unique regarding guidance in that your thrust is taking place entirely at the bottom of the vehicle. This is not just a 'systems failure'. This is a fundamental, inescapable problem of rockets that makes guidance very difficult, and therefore more failure-prone than something that is air-breathing and thrusts from closer to the center of mass.
Scramjets can be better than rockets. That we don't have a working orbit-capable one yet is irrelevant. We know this because aerospace engineers are bright guys and have done the math.
You propose spending billions to "solve" reliability problems in rockets by using scramjets made out of unobtainium.
Never said anything of the sort. I said that rockets were nowhere near as efficient as scramjets and that rockets suck for getting to orbit. I've provided links for the former and today's $10k/kilo pricetag on launches demonstrates the latter. Will scramjets be cheaper? If we can get them to work, the theory says they will be. No way to know for sure without trying.
I'd prefer spending the money on something with a reasonable chance of being useful and feasible
I'm all for it. But the guys with money have spent 50 years putting everything into rockets. That they are even considering something else is an achievement. Laser boosters, beanstalks, whatever. Never said that scramjets were the best, simply that, if they can be made to get to orbit, they'll likely do so more cheaply than any straight-up rocket launcher. I have explained why rockets are so pitiful. I realize the materials problem for scramjets is really, really difficult. But hey, so were the problems with rockets.
Lastly, NASA is the one that spends billions of dollars on programs. Hyshot put this thing together for 1 million. Not exactly chump change, but NASA's test was many times more than that and they have yet to try again.
That's already a crime. What, then, is this law for?
allow the crook to sell the phone off and make profit from their violent crimes
Violent crimes are, surprise, surprise, already crimes. What, then, is this law for?
If you want to hack your own phone- frankly, the chances of getting caught are really tiny- go ahead knock yourself out.
So we are supposed to ignore it!?!?! Just what on earth is this law for?
Probably not as good; but might work.
The alternative is this abortion of a law which will not work at all. I fail to see how punishing actual violent criminals will work still less.
The young thugs that do the stealing probably aren't the ones that do the reprocessing.
So in other words, the law intentionally does not do anything about violent criminals, but is instead going after 'reasonably legal' businesses? Well that's fantastic, since as we all know, illegal businesses (that would totally ignore this law, and therefore let young thugs continue cashing in on the phones) can't possibly exist, right?
Regarding jet engines: got a link? Regarding scramjets: so you mean this technology they've spent billions of dollars on is further along than the one that got virtually no funding at all? What a surprise.
Terrier-Orion sounding rockets (from surplus military stocks) can be obtained on a university budget
Can you get to orbit in them?
The dev costs on scramjets are easily in the billions
And, what, orbital rockets were developed in someone's backyard on a shoestring budget? They spent billions on them, too.
Finally, who cares how much is tanking. Fuel costs are negligable compared to the rest.
What we're interested in here is mass. To get to orbit, a rocket has to take thousands of tons of oxidizer along with it. A scramjet could leave most of it behind.
(hint: they weren't. Scramjets will be subject to the same guidance problems).
What, you mean the guidance problem of having all your thrust at the very bottom of the vehicle, which is basically a requirement for rockets?
As was pointed out != as has been proven. Please point me to your real-world proofs or stop presenting "I hope" as "It has been proven".
Oh, I do apologize. Shuttle engines specific impulse in a vacuum of 452. And let's see, here's an experimental air-breathing jet engine with a specific impulse in the atmosphere of around 2000. Or this one, from NASA themselves. In particular note the specific impulse of ion engines at 20000 which, if I'm not mistaken is higher than 400. Also it specifically states, "The chemical rocket engine is a fairly lightweight device. However, the specific impulse is not high. Solid and liquid propellants in present use deliver an impulse of around 250 seconds. The best liquid propellants so far conceived and evaluated yield an impulse of about 350 seconds." And of, course, there's this one, also at NASA, stating that Scramjets' specific impulse varies over the Mach range from 1000 to 1500. Want more?
Before stating that scramjets can accelerate to mach25 in the atmosphere you are going to have to solve the materiels problem
Gee, I seem to recall saying that very same thing. How kind of you to tell me what I already knew and act like you are all-knowing in the process.
scramjets by definition cannot [throttle back]
Eh? They have to accelerate constantly the whole time? Can't slow down, can't cruise, can't do anything except go faster? Do explain to me where you learned this.
Until then, kindly refrain from proposing theoretical yet unachievable limits.
You're the one proposing limits pal, not me.
I'm not against the idea, I'm just not convinced that it's a better one. :)
The people that this law is supposed to but behind bars are almost certainly already guilty of committing any number of crimes. Theft, trafficking in stolen goods, etc. It therefore has almost no chance of hurting guilty people more and almost every chance of hurting innocent people. To add yet another law, that is, another set of loopholes and complications to an already insanely complicated legal code, without bothering to look at the effectiveness of the ones in place, is folly.
I realize your phrasing did not exactly indicate support for this bill, merely a guess at the (twisted) logic behind it, so if the sarcasm above is misplaced, I do apologize. But really, banning activities for no other purpose than to be able to tack on time to prison sentences acquired by commiting what are already crimes is by far the dumbest way to make streets safer.
Ah well, there'd still be lots of Congresscritters who'd follow the carrot right off the cliff. And it'd work both ways; how difficult would it be to get existing bad laws off the books?
What you neglect to mention is that your existing engine (i.e., the rocket) is 2000 lbs, costs $10000 to buy, must be taken into the shop every week for another $5000 worth of repairs, and is so fuel inefficient that 99% of your car is gas tank.
Rockets are working technology & the most efficient power source known to man
Rockets are barely working technology. I find it ironic that the failure of both NASA's and Australia's previous scramjet tests were due to the rocket booster screwing up. They are insanely complicated and expensive beyond all reason. And they do not even come close to being the most efficient. As was pointed out, in the atmosphere Scramjets are 3 times more efficient. Outside the atmosphere, ion drives and even a simple pulsedrive are orders of magnitude more efficient. Rockets' only saving grace is that they can be used in both.
And where'd you get the idea that scramjets peter out at mach 10? There's nothing in the theory that keeps them from going as fast as you want. Your biggest problem is that heat from air friction melts your plane at these speeds.
The big difference here is the motives of the people involved. Under capitalism, I exploit you because I think I know what's best for me. Under communism, I exploit you because I think I know what's best for you.
Not to mention Explorer's 'View as Webpage'! After getting rid of the Welcome screen and deleting extraneous desktop crap, that's the very first thing I turn off.
Not that I would, but out of idle curiosity, does Godwin's Law apply to Nazis in particular or can it also be called on Fascism in general?
(5) the American intellectual property sector has invested millions of dollars to develop highly sophisticated authentication features that assist consumers and law enforcement in distinguishing genuine intellectual property products and packaging from counterfeits;
Which I would respond with: So fucking what? They sent lots of good money after bad, precisely why should the we the people spend our freedoms to get them their money back?
(6) in order to thwart these industry efforts, counterfeiters traffic in, and tamper with, genuine authentication features, for example, by obtaining genuine authentication features through illicit means and then commingling these features with counterfeit software or packaging;
Pure bullshit. Napster, Audiogalaxy, DeCSS, KaZaa, etc, never once proclaimed themselves to be legitimate distributors/authenticators of whatever it was you got from them.
Unfortunately, I, being a mere 'Consumer', must trust to the wisdom of my betters when it comes to deciding what I should and should not be allowed to say.