re: "a bullet fired at an angle retained enough of it's velocity to kill."
yes... but a bullet travelling at terminal velocity is (technically) limited to its maximum vertical freefall velocity (assuming no external forces other than gravity, per the definition of terminal velocity), so if you're hit by a bullet travelling at an angle (after perigee on a ballistic trajectory), its likely that the bullet is travelling faster than terminal velocity (the resultant speed would be the sum of terminal vertical velocity and drag-dependent horizontal velocity vectors)
just a nit pick, but my original reply wasn't about being hit by a bullet fired at an angle, it was in reply to a statement about a bullet travelling at terminal velocity
a sniper round can travel a long way on a ballistic trajectory (according to wikipedia the longest kill is by an Australian this year that travelled over 2.8 km), of which most of the velocity component is horizontal, so any shot fired on a ballistic trajectory (especially a shallow one) is definitely one to avoid
of course hospitals and patients don't get it for free... my point was that if human blood products were traded like medical products made from panda blood (as in on the open market), it would be a very dangerous world indeed
its hard to make a judgement based on one article alone (and only the abstract for that matter since i couldn't access the rest) but based on physics and fluid dynamics the impact energy of a falling bullet is significantly lower than that of a bullet fired directly
you mention treatment of 118 injuries with 38 deaths, which seems like a high mortaility figure, but how many people are hit with falling bullets that don't require treatment in hospital? it would seem that if you have been hit in such a way as to require hospital treatment, the impact must have caused severe damage... there is no mention of the age of patients (obviously elderly or those with calcium deficiency or esteoporosis might be more prone to fataility as a result from a falling bullet to the head). there are more factors needed to determine the real danger. being hit anywhere but the head seems unlikely to be fatal, and a healthy human skull is reasonably tough. lots of people get hit with all sorts of things and survive.
i appreciate your investigation though, and i definitely don't think of a falling bullet as not being of any concern. like i said originally, it would in the very least hurt like hell, even if it merely hit you in the finger or foot
i'm lucky enough to live in a country with very strict gun laws (Australia) and the gun culture here is much more tame (limited to gun clubs and hunting) so most people don't even own a gun
Re: "It's big money at the helm, not the politicians in office"
no actually its the other way around... you are only looking at the obvious consequence of increased government power. lobbyists get rich because the government has power to sell. if you take the power away from government, there would nothing to bribe the politicians for and the lobbyists would eventually go away
big businesses get rich off the government because of lobbying the government and funding election campaigns, which is essentially corruption... yes it may be hard to imagine that the very government who oppresses other corrupt countries into becoming more "democratic" is actually corrupt itself
the proof is in the pudding... if politicians were'nt benefiting from under the table deals (and over the table deals such as election campaign contributions) there would be no corruption in washington and no bailouts or anything like that. unfortunately politicians are merely human and every human has a price (possibly even ron paul - its just that his price probably far and away exceeds the price of most politicians and is beyond the affordability of even the biggest corporations)
don't be a fool and confuse the issues... it is true that you can't change how corporations operate and that's why you think you have no power, but corporations aren't the bad guy here. they are merely behaving like any pack of dogs (or humans) would in the same situation... if the government throws a bone to a pack of dogs, the biggest dogs are always going to get it... if you think its the dogs fault for taking the bone then you're wrong. the government shouldn't be throwing the bones to the dogs in the first place.
there are 2 solutions: either elect officials that are uncorruptable (good luck with that) or take away bone throwing power from officials, so there is really only one solution, and that's the solution that people like ron paul, peter sheiff, etc have been advocating for years (and being ignored because obviously government doesn't want to give up its power), but the people have some power through who they vote for, and if you vote for people like ron paul (and even though he has now retired you can be sure that there will be more "tea party" reps in future) you can vote in people who may have the balls to start slashing away at the edges of government, reducing department budgets (which will mean less government jobs) etc. yes there will be jobs lost, but the people who lose government jobs will go out and find more productive jobs in companies that actually make useful contributions to the economy
i could go on forever, but if you just type "peter scheiff" in youtube, you will see a man who has his head screwed on right talking to a lot of idiots in media and government who have absolutely no idea how the world works
actually i should qualify that a bit more... obama is just another lying scumbag
ron paul has been consistent in his constitutional policies for 30 years and has served in congress for many of those (so he is definitely "electable" despite what moron journos may suggest), and if he had have won the presidential office he would have been your best hope at disbanding the fed and reigning in government, since he could have vetoed any measure to increase the scope of government
mitt romney is also a dipshit so thanks to the republican primary voters you lost that chance, but i still think voting obama in for a second term won't get you anywhere... it will be business as usual in washington
if you continue to think it's impossible, there's a good bet you'll never get where you want to be (and ironically you thinking you have no power is what you have been brainwashed into thinking)
americans really are a product of their environment, so i don't really blame them for the years of consumption and unscupulous spending, and i feel sorry for the position you find yourselves in now, but as much as the solution seems so hard, consider the result of doing nothing
not anywhere near as much as a bullet going up much faster than terminal velocity... not to say it wouldn't probably hurt like hell, especially if it hit you in the head
when the captain announces "i'm sorry but there appears to be a serious malfunction with our avionics... please put your heads between your knees and kiss your asses goodbye" the stewards might have a bit of a clue by that stage
HIRF is a serious threat to aircraft (from inside and outside sources) but inside sources needn't be as strong to be potentially dangerous as outside sources. it also needn't actually cause damage... if something merely causes interference in the flight crew comm headsets it can inhibit effective communication and put the flight at risk
wow is slashdot the only place where a simple analogy intended to merely highlight a point is taken right out of context and analyzed to infinity?
plenty of people write cheques with their mouths that their bodies can't cash, same as if people start taking whatever they want on an aircraft, they may well find that it kills them (and others)
avionics inside the plane is more protected by stuff from outside the plane than other sources of interference inside... the skin of the plane sort of acts like a fartaday cage (typo but a classic one that i had to leave), with any residual current being transferred through a ground plane (no pun intended) through static discharge whips on the trailing edges
but hey why would anyone want to let any kind of technical reasoning stop them... lets deregulate the entire aviation industry
i agree that the FAA is very bureaucratic and that there is too much regulation in the US (particularly in economic areas), but aviation safety (like workplace safety and other select safety-related areas) shouldn't be eliminated altogether. if you have a good technical reason why a particular regulation should be amended, such as FAR part 23, section 1308 (High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection), you are more likely to get the FAA's attention by following their due process. if you have a specific item that you want to carry in an airplane, there are also other ways you can get approval.
rather than trying to tell the FAA what they should do, try asking them what you can do to help make it possible to carry more electronic things on airplanes. the answers will require a lot of money and testing thoughout the certification process, but when you think about it how else can you really be sure that you aren't going to cause an accident? you can always let people carry whatever they like, wait for an accident and then use hindsight to regulate, and that has occured (particularly in areas of metal fatigue) but you're not really going to win any friends (particularly in the FAA who are responsible for civilian air safety) with an attitude like that
"i know... lets cut them up and see what we can use their blood for... oh wow the blood can be a commodity for use in medicine... poachers sure don't have any reason to kill them now! this is pure genius"
because the proposed major projects are stupid... send men to an asteroid!? please... the president has been watching too many movies
nasa can't even manage a cost efficient, safe, reliable and regular system for access to low earth orbit... now that would be a much more reasonable goal, and one that they could build a market from to sell services to subsidise more of their efforts rather than merely leeching off the tax payer with little tax payer return
re: "an electronic device capable of performing boolean algebra"
i'm sure if i referred to my car as a machine capable of performing linear motion i would confuse the fuck out of everyone, so what's the point of referring to a surface as a device capable of performing boolean algebra? if you're talking about tools, try calling a spade a spade.
re: "the ARM Cortex-A9 connected to various other devices which themselves shouldn't have any problem interfacing with the linux kernel"... what about the thing that actually prevents you from running the Linux kernel?
just because i have a car with an engine, seats, steering wheel, fuel, battery etc doesn't mean shit if i don't have the keys to start it... maybe it can be hotwired, but that's obviously not how it was designed to work... i'm sure its theoretically possible to "hotwire" a surface to run linux, but that would clearly be outside the scope of its design
if you did manage to start a linux installer, what about if there was a device for which there was no linux driver? sure you can possibly reverse engineer one... why not just buy an ARM Cortex-A9 and the various other individual parts to make a surface and leave out the UEFI? at least then you won't need any workarounds
what's that supposed to mean? you're going to disqualify someone merely because they post AC? kinda explains why the rest of your post is full of shit though... you're an idiot
"Why does making an OS run on a device that was designed to lock the user out run Linux mean that other efforts must stop?"
I don't think there was any implication that development efforts must stop, only that morons bitching about it should either get over it or fork the kernel themselves (which of course you are free to do).
"Err, no. Bad analogy."
regardless of analogy, stupid people will be stupid regardless of what you tell them, and if you buy a surface expecting to run linux on it, you are stupid
"More like "I bought a saw, but it only cuts Microsoft Wood, and a hammer but it only drives Microsoft Nails." But it still doesn't work."
...but it does work if you use a microsoft hammer to drive microsoft nails (as was intended as is made quite clear and obvious before you buy)
Re: "If I was more clever, I'd do a rendition of a Police song to accentuate the point."
no, actually if you were clever you would get linux running on surface yourself rather than expecting the "linux community" to do it for you
unfortunately you aren't clever... you're not one of those ex-wintards who expect linux to be more like windows, only without the price tag? guess what... if you buy a surface you've already paid the windows tax so you're not saving yourself anything
linux isn't about sending any kind of message... it isn't about lobbying or making companies like microsoft look bad... its about freedom (not just as in "free beer")... and you are quite free to try to get linux working on a surface yourself, or you are free to bitch about it on slashdot, and i'm free to think you're a moron... ain't freedom great?
Re: "A Surface is a flying goldfish whose wings have been tied down to prevent it flying."
so... if you wanted a goldfish that flies, why would you buy one with its wings tied down? why not just buy one that has wings that aren't tied down? its not as if they aren't available (metaphorically speaking)
there are so many analogies that can highlight the stupidity of buying a surface for installing linux, but its hard to stop stupid people from being stupid no matter what you tell them
maybe those companing (i'm not saying you are one of them) should think of it as restriction of ownership or some kind of security feature... think of it as a compatibility issue
most set top boxes have some kind of linux kernel in them... none have windows 7 that i know of... should i get all upset if i suddenly decided i wanted a set top box with windows 7 installed on it?
so what if microsoft's motives weren't "noble", they aren't forcing anyone to buy anything... just as its stupid for anyone to expect linux kernel developers to donate their time and expertise to get around the surface uefi just to satisfy some obscure need to install linux on one
Re: "10s of thousands of projects are done by government entities in the US every year without a problem and using a systematic process which keeps the price low"
ignorant people like you (which there are many in the US) are why the US is so fucked
google peter shieff and ron paul... and educate yourself moron
the US people are dependent on the government and the government is basically the entire economy... which ironically is also the case in China and other socialist countries
"land of the free" is a fucking memory in the US... you can't even fart in the US without being scrutinized by the fucking government, and China has more capitalism (as in a real free market) than the US, where "companies" merely compete for government contracts, grants and payouts
Slashdot Mirror
re: "a bullet fired at an angle retained enough of it's velocity to kill."
yes... but a bullet travelling at terminal velocity is (technically) limited to its maximum vertical freefall velocity (assuming no external forces other than gravity, per the definition of terminal velocity), so if you're hit by a bullet travelling at an angle (after perigee on a ballistic trajectory), its likely that the bullet is travelling faster than terminal velocity (the resultant speed would be the sum of terminal vertical velocity and drag-dependent horizontal velocity vectors)
just a nit pick, but my original reply wasn't about being hit by a bullet fired at an angle, it was in reply to a statement about a bullet travelling at terminal velocity
a sniper round can travel a long way on a ballistic trajectory (according to wikipedia the longest kill is by an Australian this year that travelled over 2.8 km), of which most of the velocity component is horizontal, so any shot fired on a ballistic trajectory (especially a shallow one) is definitely one to avoid
of course hospitals and patients don't get it for free... my point was that if human blood products were traded like medical products made from panda blood (as in on the open market), it would be a very dangerous world indeed
oops i mean peter schiff (not scheiff) of course... dunno how i got that spelling in my head
if i heard a mortar on new years eve i would definitely be looking for cover
its hard to make a judgement based on one article alone (and only the abstract for that matter since i couldn't access the rest) but based on physics and fluid dynamics the impact energy of a falling bullet is significantly lower than that of a bullet fired directly
you mention treatment of 118 injuries with 38 deaths, which seems like a high mortaility figure, but how many people are hit with falling bullets that don't require treatment in hospital? it would seem that if you have been hit in such a way as to require hospital treatment, the impact must have caused severe damage... there is no mention of the age of patients (obviously elderly or those with calcium deficiency or esteoporosis might be more prone to fataility as a result from a falling bullet to the head). there are more factors needed to determine the real danger. being hit anywhere but the head seems unlikely to be fatal, and a healthy human skull is reasonably tough. lots of people get hit with all sorts of things and survive.
i appreciate your investigation though, and i definitely don't think of a falling bullet as not being of any concern. like i said originally, it would in the very least hurt like hell, even if it merely hit you in the finger or foot
i'm lucky enough to live in a country with very strict gun laws (Australia) and the gun culture here is much more tame (limited to gun clubs and hunting) so most people don't even own a gun
Re: "It's big money at the helm, not the politicians in office"
no actually its the other way around... you are only looking at the obvious consequence of increased government power. lobbyists get rich because the government has power to sell. if you take the power away from government, there would nothing to bribe the politicians for and the lobbyists would eventually go away
big businesses get rich off the government because of lobbying the government and funding election campaigns, which is essentially corruption... yes it may be hard to imagine that the very government who oppresses other corrupt countries into becoming more "democratic" is actually corrupt itself
the proof is in the pudding... if politicians were'nt benefiting from under the table deals (and over the table deals such as election campaign contributions) there would be no corruption in washington and no bailouts or anything like that. unfortunately politicians are merely human and every human has a price (possibly even ron paul - its just that his price probably far and away exceeds the price of most politicians and is beyond the affordability of even the biggest corporations)
don't be a fool and confuse the issues... it is true that you can't change how corporations operate and that's why you think you have no power, but corporations aren't the bad guy here. they are merely behaving like any pack of dogs (or humans) would in the same situation... if the government throws a bone to a pack of dogs, the biggest dogs are always going to get it... if you think its the dogs fault for taking the bone then you're wrong. the government shouldn't be throwing the bones to the dogs in the first place.
there are 2 solutions: either elect officials that are uncorruptable (good luck with that) or take away bone throwing power from officials, so there is really only one solution, and that's the solution that people like ron paul, peter sheiff, etc have been advocating for years (and being ignored because obviously government doesn't want to give up its power), but the people have some power through who they vote for, and if you vote for people like ron paul (and even though he has now retired you can be sure that there will be more "tea party" reps in future) you can vote in people who may have the balls to start slashing away at the edges of government, reducing department budgets (which will mean less government jobs) etc. yes there will be jobs lost, but the people who lose government jobs will go out and find more productive jobs in companies that actually make useful contributions to the economy
i could go on forever, but if you just type "peter scheiff" in youtube, you will see a man who has his head screwed on right talking to a lot of idiots in media and government who have absolutely no idea how the world works
actually i should qualify that a bit more... obama is just another lying scumbag
ron paul has been consistent in his constitutional policies for 30 years and has served in congress for many of those (so he is definitely "electable" despite what moron journos may suggest), and if he had have won the presidential office he would have been your best hope at disbanding the fed and reigning in government, since he could have vetoed any measure to increase the scope of government
mitt romney is also a dipshit so thanks to the republican primary voters you lost that chance, but i still think voting obama in for a second term won't get you anywhere... it will be business as usual in washington
if you continue to think it's impossible, there's a good bet you'll never get where you want to be (and ironically you thinking you have no power is what you have been brainwashed into thinking)
americans really are a product of their environment, so i don't really blame them for the years of consumption and unscupulous spending, and i feel sorry for the position you find yourselves in now, but as much as the solution seems so hard, consider the result of doing nothing
have you attended any of the rallies or protests?
why did obama get into office then? seems like the choir is full of dipshits to me
fair enough... i'm sure the danger is much less than if someone shot you directly
important yes, but commodities are bought and sold, not donated
not anywhere near as much as a bullet going up much faster than terminal velocity... not to say it wouldn't probably hurt like hell, especially if it hit you in the head
i doubt it would kill you
lucky bastard... my wife has little sex drive, so the most i can do is ask a favor from mrs palmer and her five daughters :)
when the captain announces "i'm sorry but there appears to be a serious malfunction with our avionics... please put your heads between your knees and kiss your asses goodbye" the stewards might have a bit of a clue by that stage
HIRF is a serious threat to aircraft (from inside and outside sources) but inside sources needn't be as strong to be potentially dangerous as outside sources. it also needn't actually cause damage... if something merely causes interference in the flight crew comm headsets it can inhibit effective communication and put the flight at risk
wow is slashdot the only place where a simple analogy intended to merely highlight a point is taken right out of context and analyzed to infinity?
plenty of people write cheques with their mouths that their bodies can't cash, same as if people start taking whatever they want on an aircraft, they may well find that it kills them (and others)
avionics inside the plane is more protected by stuff from outside the plane than other sources of interference inside... the skin of the plane sort of acts like a fartaday cage (typo but a classic one that i had to leave), with any residual current being transferred through a ground plane (no pun intended) through static discharge whips on the trailing edges
but hey why would anyone want to let any kind of technical reasoning stop them... lets deregulate the entire aviation industry
i agree that the FAA is very bureaucratic and that there is too much regulation in the US (particularly in economic areas), but aviation safety (like workplace safety and other select safety-related areas) shouldn't be eliminated altogether. if you have a good technical reason why a particular regulation should be amended, such as FAR part 23, section 1308 (High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection), you are more likely to get the FAA's attention by following their due process. if you have a specific item that you want to carry in an airplane, there are also other ways you can get approval.
rather than trying to tell the FAA what they should do, try asking them what you can do to help make it possible to carry more electronic things on airplanes. the answers will require a lot of money and testing thoughout the certification process, but when you think about it how else can you really be sure that you aren't going to cause an accident? you can always let people carry whatever they like, wait for an accident and then use hindsight to regulate, and that has occured (particularly in areas of metal fatigue) but you're not really going to win any friends (particularly in the FAA who are responsible for civilian air safety) with an attitude like that
imagine the irony if human blood became a valuable commodity
"i know... lets cut them up and see what we can use their blood for... oh wow the blood can be a commodity for use in medicine... poachers sure don't have any reason to kill them now! this is pure genius"
great comeback moron... the most you can pick on is my use of three dots!
:)
i either made my point and you're pissed, or you're completely oblivious to my point and spend most of your time licking windows
either way, thanks for the feedback
heil obama!
because the proposed major projects are stupid... send men to an asteroid!? please... the president has been watching too many movies
nasa can't even manage a cost efficient, safe, reliable and regular system for access to low earth orbit... now that would be a much more reasonable goal, and one that they could build a market from to sell services to subsidise more of their efforts rather than merely leeching off the tax payer with little tax payer return
re: "an electronic device capable of performing boolean algebra"
i'm sure if i referred to my car as a machine capable of performing linear motion i would confuse the fuck out of everyone, so what's the point of referring to a surface as a device capable of performing boolean algebra? if you're talking about tools, try calling a spade a spade.
re: "the ARM Cortex-A9 connected to various other devices which themselves shouldn't have any problem interfacing with the linux kernel"... what about the thing that actually prevents you from running the Linux kernel?
just because i have a car with an engine, seats, steering wheel, fuel, battery etc doesn't mean shit if i don't have the keys to start it... maybe it can be hotwired, but that's obviously not how it was designed to work... i'm sure its theoretically possible to "hotwire" a surface to run linux, but that would clearly be outside the scope of its design
if you did manage to start a linux installer, what about if there was a device for which there was no linux driver? sure you can possibly reverse engineer one... why not just buy an ARM Cortex-A9 and the various other individual parts to make a surface and leave out the UEFI? at least then you won't need any workarounds
"Says the AC."
what's that supposed to mean? you're going to disqualify someone merely because they post AC? kinda explains why the rest of your post is full of shit though... you're an idiot
"Why does making an OS run on a device that was designed to lock the user out run Linux mean that other efforts must stop?"
I don't think there was any implication that development efforts must stop, only that morons bitching about it should either get over it or fork the kernel themselves (which of course you are free to do).
"Err, no. Bad analogy."
regardless of analogy, stupid people will be stupid regardless of what you tell them, and if you buy a surface expecting to run linux on it, you are stupid
"More like "I bought a saw, but it only cuts Microsoft Wood, and a hammer but it only drives Microsoft Nails." But it still doesn't work."
...but it does work if you use a microsoft hammer to drive microsoft nails (as was intended as is made quite clear and obvious before you buy)
Re: "If I was more clever, I'd do a rendition of a Police song to accentuate the point."
no, actually if you were clever you would get linux running on surface yourself rather than expecting the "linux community" to do it for you
unfortunately you aren't clever... you're not one of those ex-wintards who expect linux to be more like windows, only without the price tag? guess what... if you buy a surface you've already paid the windows tax so you're not saving yourself anything
linux isn't about sending any kind of message... it isn't about lobbying or making companies like microsoft look bad... its about freedom (not just as in "free beer")... and you are quite free to try to get linux working on a surface yourself, or you are free to bitch about it on slashdot, and i'm free to think you're a moron... ain't freedom great?
Re: "A Surface is a flying goldfish whose wings have been tied down to prevent it flying."
so... if you wanted a goldfish that flies, why would you buy one with its wings tied down? why not just buy one that has wings that aren't tied down? its not as if they aren't available (metaphorically speaking)
there are so many analogies that can highlight the stupidity of buying a surface for installing linux, but its hard to stop stupid people from being stupid no matter what you tell them
maybe those companing (i'm not saying you are one of them) should think of it as restriction of ownership or some kind of security feature... think of it as a compatibility issue
most set top boxes have some kind of linux kernel in them... none have windows 7 that i know of... should i get all upset if i suddenly decided i wanted a set top box with windows 7 installed on it?
so what if microsoft's motives weren't "noble", they aren't forcing anyone to buy anything... just as its stupid for anyone to expect linux kernel developers to donate their time and expertise to get around the surface uefi just to satisfy some obscure need to install linux on one
Re: "10s of thousands of projects are done by government entities in the US every year without a problem and using a systematic process which keeps the price low"
ignorant people like you (which there are many in the US) are why the US is so fucked
google peter shieff and ron paul... and educate yourself moron
the US people are dependent on the government and the government is basically the entire economy... which ironically is also the case in China and other socialist countries
"land of the free" is a fucking memory in the US... you can't even fart in the US without being scrutinized by the fucking government, and China has more capitalism (as in a real free market) than the US, where "companies" merely compete for government contracts, grants and payouts