Here's the thing: guns are REALLY SIMPLE MACHINES. A gun can have fewer moving parts than a ballpoint pen. You can make a lethal (though inefficient and awkward) gun in the plumbing department of Home Depot. Any competent machine shop or home hobby machinist can make a basic gun with tools they already own. Even a more sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic gun can be made with relative ease; it's only things like superb accuracy or high reliability that are harder to engineer. Which means that guns ARE NOT GOING AWAY, EVER. They may be harder to buy legally, but we've seen how well that keeps people from drugs. Add to that the fact that if you're hellbent on killing folks, there are other ways to do it. Pipe bombs, poison koolaid, even just plowing a truck through a crowd... there will never be a shortage of ways to kill people.
Eh. POTS may be slightly less vulnerable to system failure than cellular, but not much. And you're depending on physical wire which is more susceptible to damage. If you're really concerned about emergency communication capability, radio is the only way to go. No centralized ANYTHING, no infrastructure of any kind, and (with a bit of forethought) can work indefinitely, entirely off the grid. Go get your ham radio license.
Various forms of 3D scanners, using either light or physical probes, have been around for decades. It was a natural and simple extension of CNC technology, replacing the cutting head with a touch sensor. This product might be cheaper, or more user-friendly, or faster, but its capability is not revolutionary.
Have they learned nothing from AT&T's coverage woes? T-mobile doesn't have ANY data service in my area. Or my parents' home, 3 hrs. away. Or my grandmother's home. Or my work. And I'm in a town of 370,000.
The critical moment is when something is offered for sale. If I build an open design car for my own use, and it fails miserably, it's my own dumb fault. However, as soon as I sell that car to someone else, I am warranting it to be a saleable product, which carries a number of legal implications. To a greater or lesser degree, I am liable for its performance.
The underlying problem isn't "open" or "closed" design, it's that when you sell something you're liable for it. To be willing to sell something, companies need to do a lot of work to ensure that the product is safe, in many cases far more work than creating the product in the first place. That being the case, there is little financial motive for openness and a large financial motive for keeping it proprietary.
The problem won't be in finding volunteers. It never is. There are always plenty of risk-takers (as well as garden-variety crazy people) who are willing to volunteer for something dangerous but interesting.
For historical reference, after both the Challenger and Columbia disasters, NASA saw a rise in the number of applicants to be astronauts.
I live in China (near Shanghai). As of this morning, the usual blocked sites were still blocked (Wiki, etc.) but/., YouTube, webcomics, etc. are still up and running.
The line between a prosthetic which restores lost natural abilities and a prosthetic which also enhances them is no line at all. You can attempt to quantitatively define the line (like the MIT prof), but since the boundaries of human performance are constantly changing there's no real standard.
A slightly different question: what if he used a different model of prosthetic leg (longer, springier, I dunno) which enabled him to run faster, but slightly slower than the world record? He would still be within the limits of "normal" performance, but he could get a silver medal simply by changing the technology.
It seems to me that this is fundamentally the same argument and counterargument that's been heard a hundred times...
A: You're circumventing our business model! You're evil! B: That's because your business model annoys me and I have the technology to get around it. If you don't like it, find another business model. A: But... this is our business model! We'll keep the business model and try to find other ways to stop you from circumventing it. B: Didn't you learn before? Once technology has moved past your business model, there's no point in trying to hold it back.
And from talking to most of the folks here, it's a nonissue, for 3 reasons -
1) The firewall is becoming less of a problem as things like Wikipedia are unblocked. 2) The vast majority of people in China aren't interested in the vast majority of the "blocked" content. 3) The tech-savvy and/or highly motivated types have already found workarounds such as Tor.
People in the West seem far more concerned about the firewall than the Chinese citizens.
Personally, I am not that sure I'd want anything with nuclear fuel (such as some satellites have these days) being accelerated to mach 23 on or near land, let alone trusting the casing to withstand 2000g.
I've been swearing at these commercials for a couple days now. The ad itself is absolute crap, and I'd be surprised if many folks bought into it, but they're definitely being broadcast.
there was some other material that would do the same thing...like PVC instead of copper pipe, aluminum instead of copper cable, fiber instead of cat5, etc.
If and when we run out of copper, it might be a bit annoying for the plumbers, but AFAIK there's no widespread, critical job that can only be done by copper...
How 'bout as a controller for a mobile robot? Especially with WiFi. The screen really isn't necessary, one can do all sorts of cool things with a headless box. The firewire/USB can handle all sorts of I/O (sensors, relays, cameras, etc), and it's got more than enough processing capacity to do some on-the-fly analysis of what it's seeing.
Hell, maybe we could be nearing a robot that can plug itself in when it needs recharged...
1) Buy a cheap charcoal grill, charcoal, beer, and hamburger. 2) Put charcoal in grill. 3) Light the charcoal. 4) Make hamburgers. 5) When hamburgers are done, throw documents on grill. 6) Eat burgers, drink beer, and watch them burn. 7) Soak & stir the ashes if you're really paranoid.
From a long ways away, a 10-second burst of unholy gamma-ray badness is aimed at the earth. Everyone in its path is instantly extra-crispy.
However, won't it only hit the nearest half the earth? Even though gamma rays are hard to shield against, I'd naively think that the bulk of a planet would do a reasonably good job of shielding some of us. Catastrophe? Yes. End of a species? Maybe not.
Is there some reflective effect I'm missing? radioisotope pollutants? Is the earth not enough shielding? What am I missing?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the thing: guns are REALLY SIMPLE MACHINES. A gun can have fewer moving parts than a ballpoint pen. You can make a lethal (though inefficient and awkward) gun in the plumbing department of Home Depot. Any competent machine shop or home hobby machinist can make a basic gun with tools they already own. Even a more sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic gun can be made with relative ease; it's only things like superb accuracy or high reliability that are harder to engineer. Which means that guns ARE NOT GOING AWAY, EVER. They may be harder to buy legally, but we've seen how well that keeps people from drugs. Add to that the fact that if you're hellbent on killing folks, there are other ways to do it. Pipe bombs, poison koolaid, even just plowing a truck through a crowd... there will never be a shortage of ways to kill people.
Shit shit shit shit shit.
https://twitter.com/NASASpacef...
Eh. POTS may be slightly less vulnerable to system failure than cellular, but not much. And you're depending on physical wire which is more susceptible to damage. If you're really concerned about emergency communication capability, radio is the only way to go. No centralized ANYTHING, no infrastructure of any kind, and (with a bit of forethought) can work indefinitely, entirely off the grid. Go get your ham radio license.
Various forms of 3D scanners, using either light or physical probes, have been around for decades. It was a natural and simple extension of CNC technology, replacing the cutting head with a touch sensor. This product might be cheaper, or more user-friendly, or faster, but its capability is not revolutionary.
Burt Rutan - Airplane Designer, general badass,
Richard Branson - Explorer, businessman, etc.
Steve Fossett - Explorer!
Hell, any of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
Have they learned nothing from AT&T's coverage woes? T-mobile doesn't have ANY data service in my area. Or my parents' home, 3 hrs. away. Or my grandmother's home. Or my work. And I'm in a town of 370,000.
The critical moment is when something is offered for sale. If I build an open design car for my own use, and it fails miserably, it's my own dumb fault. However, as soon as I sell that car to someone else, I am warranting it to be a saleable product, which carries a number of legal implications. To a greater or lesser degree, I am liable for its performance.
The underlying problem isn't "open" or "closed" design, it's that when you sell something you're liable for it. To be willing to sell something, companies need to do a lot of work to ensure that the product is safe, in many cases far more work than creating the product in the first place. That being the case, there is little financial motive for openness and a large financial motive for keeping it proprietary.
The problem won't be in finding volunteers. It never is. There are always plenty of risk-takers (as well as garden-variety crazy people) who are willing to volunteer for something dangerous but interesting.
For historical reference, after both the Challenger and Columbia disasters, NASA saw a rise in the number of applicants to be astronauts.
Sign me the hell up.
I live in China (near Shanghai). As of this morning, the usual blocked sites were still blocked (Wiki, etc.) but /., YouTube, webcomics, etc. are still up and running.
The problem is quite simple:
The line between a prosthetic which restores lost natural abilities and a prosthetic which also enhances them is no line at all. You can attempt to quantitatively define the line (like the MIT prof), but since the boundaries of human performance are constantly changing there's no real standard.
A slightly different question: what if he used a different model of prosthetic leg (longer, springier, I dunno) which enabled him to run faster, but slightly slower than the world record? He would still be within the limits of "normal" performance, but he could get a silver medal simply by changing the technology.
It seems to me that this is fundamentally the same argument and counterargument that's been heard a hundred times...
A: You're circumventing our business model! You're evil!
B: That's because your business model annoys me and I have the technology to get around it. If you don't like it, find another business model.
A: But... this is our business model! We'll keep the business model and try to find other ways to stop you from circumventing it.
B: Didn't you learn before? Once technology has moved past your business model, there's no point in trying to hold it back.
Same nonsense, different day.
And from talking to most of the folks here, it's a nonissue, for 3 reasons -
1) The firewall is becoming less of a problem as things like Wikipedia are unblocked.
2) The vast majority of people in China aren't interested in the vast majority of the "blocked" content.
3) The tech-savvy and/or highly motivated types have already found workarounds such as Tor.
People in the West seem far more concerned about the firewall than the Chinese citizens.
This is merely an engineering question. Engineering something to stand 2000 g's is not difficult, it's just a matter of safety factors. We have developed shells and complex electronics which survive 20,000g's.
The energy use would also be far lower, since you don't have to lift the fuel into space along with the payload.
She made it into orbit successfully. Liftoff was at 11:14:55 Eastern time.
i ndex.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/
I've been swearing at these commercials for a couple days now. The ad itself is absolute crap, and I'd be surprised if many folks bought into it, but they're definitely being broadcast.
Effective relativistic travel is better than no effective relativistic travel. However, though I hope he's right, I doubt it. Oh well.
there was some other material that would do the same thing...like PVC instead of copper pipe, aluminum instead of copper cable, fiber instead of cat5, etc.
If and when we run out of copper, it might be a bit annoying for the plumbers, but AFAIK there's no widespread, critical job that can only be done by copper...
How 'bout as a controller for a mobile robot? Especially with WiFi. The screen really isn't necessary, one can do all sorts of cool things with a headless box. The firewire/USB can handle all sorts of I/O (sensors, relays, cameras, etc), and it's got more than enough processing capacity to do some on-the-fly analysis of what it's seeing.
Hell, maybe we could be nearing a robot that can plug itself in when it needs recharged...
1) Buy a cheap charcoal grill, charcoal, beer, and hamburger.
2) Put charcoal in grill.
3) Light the charcoal.
4) Make hamburgers.
5) When hamburgers are done, throw documents on grill.
6) Eat burgers, drink beer, and watch them burn.
7) Soak & stir the ashes if you're really paranoid.
Exactly. Having spent much of my young life in Minnesota, my first thought upon reading this was "-50? Ice fishing weather..."
which now brings Futurama to mind...
"We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon..."
From a long ways away, a 10-second burst of unholy gamma-ray badness is aimed at the earth. Everyone in its path is instantly extra-crispy.
However, won't it only hit the nearest half the earth? Even though gamma rays are hard to shield against, I'd naively think that the bulk of a planet would do a reasonably good job of shielding some of us. Catastrophe? Yes. End of a species? Maybe not.
Is there some reflective effect I'm missing? radioisotope pollutants? Is the earth not enough shielding? What am I missing?
Or protein folding@home, or SETI... hell, just fork a bunch of threads each counting to 1,000,000,000...
Does that mean we can't use any "welcome our microscopic fluorescent overlords" jokes?
a wonderful new RF transmission system that's almost impervious to outside interference. It's called coax cable.
Find a pretty picture (and math) here