I will admit that I don't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry, but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?
If I want a landline, I can go buy any old phone I want, and as long as it speaks the right protocols (which are pretty simple for analog landlines) I can plug it into my wall, and it works.
If I want internet service, I can go buy Ye Olde Acme Cable Modem, plug it into my wall, call up my local ISP, and poof! I have internet.
If I'm out of disk space, I can go get a hard drive from Seagate and stick it into any machine I want to.
In so many other engineering situations, interoperability between one component and another is restricted only as far as it is required to be based on the manufacturer's engineering decisions. (I can't mount a Nikon lens on a Canon camera because they have two different ways of doing autofocus, for instance.)
Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants? I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service (per byte and per minute, or whatever), and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service. If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.
Freedom of speech implies that the recipient wants to listen. I should be allowed to post the DeCSS code on the internet, but I should not be allowed to stuff dozens of copies in people's mailboxes.
I know a few childfree types, and they are all in favor of higher spending on education for everybody else's kids. I think you're tilting at a straw man here; there's no indication that people without kids are opposed to education spending.
Sure, since the intent behind performing abortions is benign -- it's a medical procedure performed for the benefit of the woman who receives it. It's no different than a powerpoint about methods for setting broken bones or performing colonoscopies.
The "God loves X" sign is probably being presented with the intent of "I hate you and your beliefs".
They're right, in a sense. Fusion's not going to solve any problems related to climate change -- we need something else for the near-term. But in a hundred and fifty years, it'd be nice to be able to produce 50x the current energy output of the world with no environmental consequences.
There was a long (~1 hour) plenary talk about this at a recent American Physical Society conference.
The NIF is exciting scientifically for studying both fusion and "extreme" materials science. No, it's not going to turn into a power plant once we get it working, but fusion power is too promising to not take steps toward it. We won't be able to roll out fusion power in time to avert climate change, of course, so it's not a first priority for energy research. But it is certainly worth doing on its scientific merits alone.
Trouble is, the main intent behind the NIF isn't science -- it's "stockpile stewardship" and weapons development. If it were simply a science experiment I imagine that the science goals could be achieved far more cheaply, and with a higher degree of openness. (For instance, some of the other approaches to fusion seem more promising. But the US's flagship fusion project is this one -- just because you can learn about bombs with it.)
Science that is worth doing (which in my opinion the NIF is) should be done completely independent of the military (so it can be done honestly) and it should be done openly (so it can be useful to society).
When you were ticketed, were you actually driving unsafely, or were you simply driving faster than someone else would like you to have been driving?
I deserved a ticket for aggressive driving the other day, probably. But I didn't get one, because the cops are too busy looking for people driving 40 in a 30 -- which is, in itself, not unsafe. Most traffic tickets are issued for things that are not unsafe.
So, the angular accuracy of those radar guns can't be that great. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the signal spread from Airy diffraction of the radar coming out of the aperture is significant.
There's a case to be made that the entire speeding prosecution system in the US has gone way, way overboard, and that it's morally justified to fight speeding tickets just to make it more difficult on the people who perpetrate this bullshit.
I think it's the motion of the engine, not the wheels. The engine turns the power steering pump, which makes the magic happen.
In a situation like this, if you cut the engine but don't put the car in neutral (or put in the clutch), the engine is still engaged, so the forward momentum of the car keeps it turning and keeps the power steering active.
I bought an '09 Yaris this year, and quickly found myself doing 90 on the freeway, not aware of my speed because the car's so quiet. It's no speed demon, but it's not that slow.
The transmission is geared for efficiency rather than power, though -- so if you want acceleration you need to downshift.
I know that part of the standard procedure for getting yourself unstuck involves braking and accelerating at the same time. It's also useful for starting a car on an incline without rolling backwards.
When you stomp the brakes and go 60-0, the decelerating torque applied by the brake pads to the wheels is limited by traction: ABS (or good braking practice) will limit the braking friction to keep the wheels turning. The brakes can apply an even higher decelerating torque than this; they just don't under normal driving conditions. But if you're trying to overcome the engine torque, then traction isn't an issue.
In all the cars I've driven, if you cut the engine while it's still turning, you keep power steering. Even if it's not, you can still steer the car without it. If you're going fast enough that there's danger, then anything more than small steering corrections will probably make you lose control anyway, and you need the power assist far less.
Honestly -- if your vehicle is so big that you can't steer it at (say) 30mph without power assist, you probably shouldn't be driving it. American cars have just gotten too damn big.
Likewise, if you lose your power brake assist, there's still pressure in the cylinder, and you can bleed off a lot of speed before it runs out -- then you get to pump the brakes.
Suppose the side using the mines *gasp* loses the war? It's not just "shitty armies" that lose wars, or that get desperate on the battlefield. Somehow I doubt the 101st Airborne at Bastogne, or the Russians at Stalingrad, were terribly worried about proper record-keeping.
If Israel were overrun, say, and were using hastily-deployed minefields in a desperate bid to hold Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, do you think they'd reveal their positions to their conquerors after the surrender, even if the records were kept?
The US invasion of Iraq is hardly a fair judge of military strategy, considering the gross mismatch in the combatants. We could have done pretty much anything and been fine in the initial invasion of Iraq.
In other words, mine removal is not an issue when they are used by a force with overwhelming military superiority over their opponents, which is in control of the terrain where the mines were planted after hostilities are over and which can come back and remove them based on their maps.
In a situation where the mine-user doesn't have overwhelming superiority and the breathing room to accurately document their locations, ensure that that documentation is kept, and remove them after the war, it's not that simple.
How does this compare to the record for doing assassinations with conventional aircraft? The most experienced at this sort of thing are the Israelis, and their record using manned missions seems about the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I will admit that I don't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry, but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?
If I want a landline, I can go buy any old phone I want, and as long as it speaks the right protocols (which are pretty simple for analog landlines) I can plug it into my wall, and it works.
If I want internet service, I can go buy Ye Olde Acme Cable Modem, plug it into my wall, call up my local ISP, and poof! I have internet.
If I'm out of disk space, I can go get a hard drive from Seagate and stick it into any machine I want to.
In so many other engineering situations, interoperability between one component and another is restricted only as far as it is required to be based on the manufacturer's engineering decisions. (I can't mount a Nikon lens on a Canon camera because they have two different ways of doing autofocus, for instance.)
Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants? I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service (per byte and per minute, or whatever), and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service. If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.
That's the start-up cost. After that's paid, what is the ongoing cost per kWh of solar compared to fossil energy?
Also keep in mind that 400 billion euros is about 20% of the cost of the war in Iraq.
Freedom of speech implies that the recipient wants to listen. I should be allowed to post the DeCSS code on the internet, but I should not be allowed to stuff dozens of copies in people's mailboxes.
Christianity (as practiced by many denominations) is incompatible with rational thought, fyi.
Not giving tax credits for having children would be a good start. Why reward the uneducated for breeding?
Misclicked and mismodded your post, posting to remove
What do childfree people have to do with taxes?
I know a few childfree types, and they are all in favor of higher spending on education for everybody else's kids. I think you're tilting at a straw man here; there's no indication that people without kids are opposed to education spending.
Sure, since the intent behind performing abortions is benign -- it's a medical procedure performed for the benefit of the woman who receives it. It's no different than a powerpoint about methods for setting broken bones or performing colonoscopies.
The "God loves X" sign is probably being presented with the intent of "I hate you and your beliefs".
They're right, in a sense. Fusion's not going to solve any problems related to climate change -- we need something else for the near-term. But in a hundred and fifty years, it'd be nice to be able to produce 50x the current energy output of the world with no environmental consequences.
It's long-term, not short-term.
There was a long (~1 hour) plenary talk about this at a recent American Physical Society conference.
The NIF is exciting scientifically for studying both fusion and "extreme" materials science. No, it's not going to turn into a power plant once we get it working, but fusion power is too promising to not take steps toward it. We won't be able to roll out fusion power in time to avert climate change, of course, so it's not a first priority for energy research. But it is certainly worth doing on its scientific merits alone.
Trouble is, the main intent behind the NIF isn't science -- it's "stockpile stewardship" and weapons development. If it were simply a science experiment I imagine that the science goals could be achieved far more cheaply, and with a higher degree of openness. (For instance, some of the other approaches to fusion seem more promising. But the US's flagship fusion project is this one -- just because you can learn about bombs with it.)
Science that is worth doing (which in my opinion the NIF is) should be done completely independent of the military (so it can be done honestly) and it should be done openly (so it can be useful to society).
This is the first time that the Nyquist sampling theorem has had an application to legal bullshit, I think. Wow.
Why does it have to be done legitimately and legally?
When the law is habitually incapable of solving a problem, it should be solved extralegally.
Why?
If I say I eat shit and find it tasty you're very correct to say I've either got broken taste buds or am a little screwy in the head.
Glenn Beck is like this.
When you were ticketed, were you actually driving unsafely, or were you simply driving faster than someone else would like you to have been driving?
I deserved a ticket for aggressive driving the other day, probably. But I didn't get one, because the cops are too busy looking for people driving 40 in a 30 -- which is, in itself, not unsafe. Most traffic tickets are issued for things that are not unsafe.
So, the angular accuracy of those radar guns can't be that great. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the signal spread from Airy diffraction of the radar coming out of the aperture is significant.
There's a case to be made that the entire speeding prosecution system in the US has gone way, way overboard, and that it's morally justified to fight speeding tickets just to make it more difficult on the people who perpetrate this bullshit.
I think it's the motion of the engine, not the wheels. The engine turns the power steering pump, which makes the magic happen.
In a situation like this, if you cut the engine but don't put the car in neutral (or put in the clutch), the engine is still engaged, so the forward momentum of the car keeps it turning and keeps the power steering active.
I bought an '09 Yaris this year, and quickly found myself doing 90 on the freeway, not aware of my speed because the car's so quiet. It's no speed demon, but it's not that slow.
The transmission is geared for efficiency rather than power, though -- so if you want acceleration you need to downshift.
I know that part of the standard procedure for getting yourself unstuck involves braking and accelerating at the same time. It's also useful for starting a car on an incline without rolling backwards.
It's even more than what you say, actually.
When you stomp the brakes and go 60-0, the decelerating torque applied by the brake pads to the wheels is limited by traction: ABS (or good braking practice) will limit the braking friction to keep the wheels turning. The brakes can apply an even higher decelerating torque than this; they just don't under normal driving conditions. But if you're trying to overcome the engine torque, then traction isn't an issue.
In all the cars I've driven, if you cut the engine while it's still turning, you keep power steering. Even if it's not, you can still steer the car without it. If you're going fast enough that there's danger, then anything more than small steering corrections will probably make you lose control anyway, and you need the power assist far less.
Honestly -- if your vehicle is so big that you can't steer it at (say) 30mph without power assist, you probably shouldn't be driving it. American cars have just gotten too damn big.
Likewise, if you lose your power brake assist, there's still pressure in the cylinder, and you can bleed off a lot of speed before it runs out -- then you get to pump the brakes.
Suppose the side using the mines *gasp* loses the war? It's not just "shitty armies" that lose wars, or that get desperate on the battlefield. Somehow I doubt the 101st Airborne at Bastogne, or the Russians at Stalingrad, were terribly worried about proper record-keeping.
If Israel were overrun, say, and were using hastily-deployed minefields in a desperate bid to hold Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, do you think they'd reveal their positions to their conquerors after the surrender, even if the records were kept?
The US invasion of Iraq is hardly a fair judge of military strategy, considering the gross mismatch in the combatants. We could have done pretty much anything and been fine in the initial invasion of Iraq.
In other words, mine removal is not an issue when they are used by a force with overwhelming military superiority over their opponents, which is in control of the terrain where the mines were planted after hostilities are over and which can come back and remove them based on their maps.
In a situation where the mine-user doesn't have overwhelming superiority and the breathing room to accurately document their locations, ensure that that documentation is kept, and remove them after the war, it's not that simple.
How does this compare to the record for doing assassinations with conventional aircraft? The most experienced at this sort of thing are the Israelis, and their record using manned missions seems about the same.