I'd not argue with you too much, having somebody digging in the glove box might look bad, but as long as the officer is in his car it might be better to get that over with before he gets out. There will be some time lag as he is on the radio with dispatch and running your plate anyway, I'm just trying to get a jump on the process that's about to unfold so I don't have to go digging with the officer at the window. If you think it's best to wait, I get your point, but if the required documents are on the dash in front of you, things will go faster.
Everybody doing Linux work needs to know VI, at least well enough to get Emacs running. If you want to do an IDE, you are going to need X which used to require editing that huge config file where I used VI. Why bother with Emacs, unless you write LISP code anyway... Syntax highlighting? Does that even work in the terminal version?
Look at it from the police officer's perspective. There are a number of nutcases out there who would gladly harm anybody in uniform. A sane police officer realizes that it is not always obvious who these people are, so the best course of action is to be ready to react and not get into dangerous situations if you don't need to.
This is why I do EVERYTHING I can to be nonthreatening when dealing with the police. I turn on lights at night, keep my hands in plain view, and if I have to go digging in my pockets or the glove compartment I first tell the officer what I'm going to do, turn to face away from him before I do it and make sure to show them my palms before I turn back. I want them to be as comfortable and feel as safe as I can because there job is risky enough without me causing them undue stress.
Nope, step out and close the door, unless they tell you not to.
The reason I'm saying this is because they can use their eyes, ears and noses. So they can look at what is visible behind you and listen to what's going on in the house behind you. If you go outside and close the door and step away from the house, they are not getting the "free" albeit limited search while they talk to you and that gives them less opportunity to "invent" a reason to search.
I'd also figure that the police would be less threatened by stepping away from the house because you are putting the "unknowns" of what's inside further away from them. On that note, you want to make sure you make no threatening looking moves. That means you keep your hands visible and sit down if possible, speak respectfully and stay calm.
All I'm saying is that there is no legal benefit to letting them in your house... If there is a religious benefit for you that outweighs the worldly, do what you must....
Sad but true, if police want to do something illegal, and you argue with them, they *will* do it anyway, and you *will* be in further trouble for attempting to resist.
That's why you DON'T resist. You respectfully make it clear that you did not consent to a search of your phone. If they ask "May I look at your phone?" you say "No, not without a warrant", if they do it anyway, you might want to say "I didn't give you permission to look at my phone, please put it down" Keep trying until they tell you to shut up.
If the police insist on doing something illegal, like searching your phone without a warrant or permission, it's going to be a matter for the courts to figure out.... Just make sure you make enough of a fuss so people around will remember that you obviously objected so you will have witnesses Nobody else there? Sorry dude, they are going to do what they want and that includes shooting you, so choose carefully.
Want to have a bad time at a traffic stop? Start your traffic stop by doing the crack-the-window and repeating the "am I free to go" mantra.
Perhaps, but what do you say when they ask you where you are going? I would suggest that you NOT answer. Yes, it may raise suspicion when you say "Respectfully officer, I'm not required to answer that question." but not knowing why you have been pulled over what choice do you have? Now if it's obvious why you've been pulled over I suppose it serves no purpose to start the "may I go" bush beating, but it's also not in your interest to start confessing or feeding the officer any information he might not already have.
So at at traffic stop what do you do? Start by asking "Is there a problem officer?" or "How can I help you officer?" Put the car in park and turn it off. Get your license, registration and insurance card ready. Keep your hands in plain view (on the steering wheel) and your window open no more than half way (at night turn on the inside lights in the car). Go from there. If you don't want to go full press "Respectfully officer I don't have to answer that question." then go with non-answers like "Where are you going?" => "I'm out for a drive." Why are you a long way from home? => "Taking a vacation/Visiting some people I know" or whatever says nothing specific. "Do you know how fast you where going?" => "I was keeping pace with other traffic." Why do you think I pulled you over? => "I don't know for sure officer, why did you?" If it's obvious he's not letting you go, don't ask. But if he hands you back your paperwork, THEN you ask if you are free to go.
The whole idea here is to be non-threatening, respectful and cooperative, but not giving any definitive answers, agreeing to any claims the officer may make or consenting to any searches and then ending the interaction with the police as quickly as possible.
The advise is sound. Do NOT consent to a search, make it clear you do not consent to as many people as possible. Even if you don't think you have anything to hide, do NOT consent to a search, ANY search... Ever... Period... You don't have to be obnoxious or disrespectful to make it clear you do not consent.
If you think they are searching your phone, say something like "Officer, I didn't give anybody permission to search my phone and I object to you looking at it." If they ask you why, you only need to repeat "Officer, with all due respect, I do not give permission for any searches." If they ask you if you have anything to hide, keep saying the same thing.
Further, I would recommend that you not answer any questions they may ask either. Once you have provided your identification, you are done answering questions with anything but "Respectfully officer, I am not required to answer your question. May I leave now?" If they say "No" or indicate that you may not leave, then you ask "Am I under arrest?" If they say you are not under arrest start the process at "May I leave now?" and keep going around the same bush until they let you leave or arrest you. Once they arrest you, SHUT UP. Say nothing but "I want my lawyer present before I will answer any questions." If they let you go, GO!
Follow this process, even if you have nothing to hide. Where it may seem to be a pain, you literally have NOTHING to gain by consenting to searches or answering questions and doing so may cost you, so it makes no sense to be cooperative. If they come to your door, don't invite them in, just step outside and close your door behind you. Remember, no answers to their questions, and no permission for any searches. Go back inside once they let you go.
Yea, and the sun will burn out too. Look, for the foreseeable future, fossil fuel is what we have to use, best we get used to that idea and stop all this nonsense. If they want to develop technology, go ahead, we just don't have to jump on everything *new* just because it's billed that way.
Call me when you get any of these solutions scaled up to industrial sized production. Something may show up here that improves the Solar->electricity->hydrogen->electricity efficiency overall, but you will be forever stuck having to disassociate hydrogen from oxygen in water in some way and that has a limited efficiency no matter what you do.
IMHO, it's a fools errand to advocate something based on unproven technology or what *might* be in the future, especially when we have enough engineering experience to know what the process limits are. In this case, hydrogen sourced from water will simply not be efficient, and any other source would be subject to the same kinds of issues that Natural Gas has.
The process depends only on the efficiency of the fuel cell, as electrolysis can be close to 100%
If you insist.... I don't agree this is true, but hey, go ahead and be wrong... As to the rest of your posting... Clearly you are not voicing a valid position to start with, so why bother trying to correct your ignorance more than once.
Enjoy living the dream.... While it lasts.. (full stop)
I was pointing out that demonstrating something at a science fair is far from being viable technology. I was claiming your "It's simple enough a High School Student can do it" argument as being invalid.
Of course I could have just addressed the improbable way you string all these things together in your fight of fancy too, but I figured the Science Fair thing was enough to dismiss you..
On that, I'm done...IMHO If you are serious, you are nuts. If you are trying to be funny, I'm mildly amused.... Take your pick if it matters to you what I think..
the flaw in your reasoning is that making hydrogen will never improve. It will and you can change the focus to just fixing it.
Thermodynamics as they are... Making hydrogen using electrolysis will not improve that much no matter what you do. Sorry, that is just a cold hard fact.
Now, making it using Natural Gas, that's a reasonably good process efficiency wise. But if you are going to consume fossil fuels, it's more efficient and cheaper to burn it in the car directly.
So, my logic is sound and based on the laws of physics and chemistry, not wishful thinking that "it will get better" someday hence.
We will have just traded one set of environmental issues for another doing what you suggest, not to mention the cost of such electric generation capacity is well above fossil fueled options.
So, technically possible? Yes. Financially viable? Nope. Environmentally neutral? Not even close. I don't think you really want to do this.
Agreed, current sources of hydrogen suck. But if we use solar and wind power to drive the electrolysis plant, we could solve two problems at once:
- variability of wind and solar vs. grid demand: hydrogen is storable enough that you could produce it when the grid has an excess of available power.
- transportation that doesn't depend on fossil fuels.
Storing energy in the form of hydrogen gas is pretty horrible efficiency wise, even in the best of circumstances. And given that Solar/Wind cannot yet compete with fossil fueled electricity generation on cost, this is just NOT a viable solution in terms of cost. I believe that there are much more efficient ways to store electric energy, thus I would think your idea would be better served by advancing other technologies.
Transportation does not have to depend on fossil fuels, even now there are other options. However, these other options are simply not able to provide enough fuel, or capacity for us to do away with fossil fuels. So we are stuck with fossil fuels.
Unless of course you don't mind making everybody pay more for everything... A lot more. I dare say most don't understand the eventual outcome of doing this will be significant numbers of starving poor and the deaths of the least fortunate of the world. How high is that ivory tower....
What I'm saying is that if you look at the *total* energy input for electrolysis (splitting water using electricity) and then compute the energy you get out of the fuel cell, it's going to take two units of power in for every unit of power out at best. The situation gets worse when you consider the energy required to store and transport the hydrogen.
Now there is a maximum thermodynamic "efficiency" of this process, and some processes can be pretty efficient compared to THAT, but we are then not talking about the same thing.
See what I mean? You totally missed what "waste heat" is when talking about heat engines, but I don't suppose they teach basic thermodynamics in high school or to programmers in college...
Current copyright laws are fairly clear and serve their purpose quite well. Are they perfect? What law is? But I shudder to think what things would be like without copyright laws, even given their arcane implementation which doesn't fit well in today's technology.
Look, I'm not defending the Supreme court here or voicing an opinion about the ruling they handed down. I'm simply trying to explain what it means to Aereo and businesses who would try to do things like that. Obviously Aereo's reliance on their novel technical solution, while clever, wasn't enough to win the day.
The suburbs is a situation born from the invention of the car and the available cheap fuel to run them. BUT...
If the point was to be as low impact as we could, you need to consider population control, as in ZERO population.. Which is where all the environmentalists wacko stuff ultimately ends up if you follow it to it's logical conclusion. They want folks to die, oh not anyone specifically, just anyone in general, yet they are unwilling to lead by example...
Then this "smart watch" isn't a watch. I carry a watch to tell the what time it is, when I'm interested in knowing. Why wear a "smart watch" if that's not what it's for?
When all else fails, Knowing the time may not be a huge problem, but it will be nice to have one. It makes it a lot easier to do a lot of things like getting around, cooking and living a well regulated life in the face of everything falling apart around you. You can time how long you boil that water you collected so you know it's safe, or how long to let the stew cook in the dutch oven. It also makes a great addition to my food and water supplies that sits next to the camping equipment, propane and charcoal supply which is next to the battery operated ham radio gear. I keep the firearms and ammo elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in the default minimum install of Red Hat 6... (or is it?)
I'd not argue with you too much, having somebody digging in the glove box might look bad, but as long as the officer is in his car it might be better to get that over with before he gets out. There will be some time lag as he is on the radio with dispatch and running your plate anyway, I'm just trying to get a jump on the process that's about to unfold so I don't have to go digging with the officer at the window. If you think it's best to wait, I get your point, but if the required documents are on the dash in front of you, things will go faster.
In that order.
FIFY.... (IMHO)
Everybody doing Linux work needs to know VI, at least well enough to get Emacs running. If you want to do an IDE, you are going to need X which used to require editing that huge config file where I used VI. Why bother with Emacs, unless you write LISP code anyway... Syntax highlighting? Does that even work in the terminal version?
Look at it from the police officer's perspective. There are a number of nutcases out there who would gladly harm anybody in uniform. A sane police officer realizes that it is not always obvious who these people are, so the best course of action is to be ready to react and not get into dangerous situations if you don't need to.
This is why I do EVERYTHING I can to be nonthreatening when dealing with the police. I turn on lights at night, keep my hands in plain view, and if I have to go digging in my pockets or the glove compartment I first tell the officer what I'm going to do, turn to face away from him before I do it and make sure to show them my palms before I turn back. I want them to be as comfortable and feel as safe as I can because there job is risky enough without me causing them undue stress.
Nope, step out and close the door, unless they tell you not to.
The reason I'm saying this is because they can use their eyes, ears and noses. So they can look at what is visible behind you and listen to what's going on in the house behind you. If you go outside and close the door and step away from the house, they are not getting the "free" albeit limited search while they talk to you and that gives them less opportunity to "invent" a reason to search.
I'd also figure that the police would be less threatened by stepping away from the house because you are putting the "unknowns" of what's inside further away from them. On that note, you want to make sure you make no threatening looking moves. That means you keep your hands visible and sit down if possible, speak respectfully and stay calm.
All I'm saying is that there is no legal benefit to letting them in your house... If there is a religious benefit for you that outweighs the worldly, do what you must....
LOL
Sad but true, if police want to do something illegal, and you argue with them, they *will* do it anyway, and you *will* be in further trouble for attempting to resist.
That's why you DON'T resist. You respectfully make it clear that you did not consent to a search of your phone. If they ask "May I look at your phone?" you say "No, not without a warrant", if they do it anyway, you might want to say "I didn't give you permission to look at my phone, please put it down" Keep trying until they tell you to shut up.
If the police insist on doing something illegal, like searching your phone without a warrant or permission, it's going to be a matter for the courts to figure out.... Just make sure you make enough of a fuss so people around will remember that you obviously objected so you will have witnesses Nobody else there? Sorry dude, they are going to do what they want and that includes shooting you, so choose carefully.
Want to have a bad time at a traffic stop? Start your traffic stop by doing the crack-the-window and repeating the "am I free to go" mantra.
Perhaps, but what do you say when they ask you where you are going? I would suggest that you NOT answer. Yes, it may raise suspicion when you say "Respectfully officer, I'm not required to answer that question." but not knowing why you have been pulled over what choice do you have? Now if it's obvious why you've been pulled over I suppose it serves no purpose to start the "may I go" bush beating, but it's also not in your interest to start confessing or feeding the officer any information he might not already have.
So at at traffic stop what do you do? Start by asking "Is there a problem officer?" or "How can I help you officer?" Put the car in park and turn it off. Get your license, registration and insurance card ready. Keep your hands in plain view (on the steering wheel) and your window open no more than half way (at night turn on the inside lights in the car). Go from there. If you don't want to go full press "Respectfully officer I don't have to answer that question." then go with non-answers like "Where are you going?" => "I'm out for a drive." Why are you a long way from home? => "Taking a vacation/Visiting some people I know" or whatever says nothing specific. "Do you know how fast you where going?" => "I was keeping pace with other traffic." Why do you think I pulled you over? => "I don't know for sure officer, why did you?" If it's obvious he's not letting you go, don't ask. But if he hands you back your paperwork, THEN you ask if you are free to go.
The whole idea here is to be non-threatening, respectful and cooperative, but not giving any definitive answers, agreeing to any claims the officer may make or consenting to any searches and then ending the interaction with the police as quickly as possible.
As opposed to trying to physically stop them?
The advise is sound. Do NOT consent to a search, make it clear you do not consent to as many people as possible. Even if you don't think you have anything to hide, do NOT consent to a search, ANY search... Ever... Period... You don't have to be obnoxious or disrespectful to make it clear you do not consent.
If you think they are searching your phone, say something like "Officer, I didn't give anybody permission to search my phone and I object to you looking at it." If they ask you why, you only need to repeat "Officer, with all due respect, I do not give permission for any searches." If they ask you if you have anything to hide, keep saying the same thing.
Further, I would recommend that you not answer any questions they may ask either. Once you have provided your identification, you are done answering questions with anything but "Respectfully officer, I am not required to answer your question. May I leave now?" If they say "No" or indicate that you may not leave, then you ask "Am I under arrest?" If they say you are not under arrest start the process at "May I leave now?" and keep going around the same bush until they let you leave or arrest you. Once they arrest you, SHUT UP. Say nothing but "I want my lawyer present before I will answer any questions." If they let you go, GO!
Follow this process, even if you have nothing to hide. Where it may seem to be a pain, you literally have NOTHING to gain by consenting to searches or answering questions and doing so may cost you, so it makes no sense to be cooperative. If they come to your door, don't invite them in, just step outside and close your door behind you. Remember, no answers to their questions, and no permission for any searches. Go back inside once they let you go.
We will run out of fossil fuels eventually. snip
Yea, and the sun will burn out too. Look, for the foreseeable future, fossil fuel is what we have to use, best we get used to that idea and stop all this nonsense. If they want to develop technology, go ahead, we just don't have to jump on everything *new* just because it's billed that way.
Call me when you get any of these solutions scaled up to industrial sized production. Something may show up here that improves the Solar->electricity->hydrogen->electricity efficiency overall, but you will be forever stuck having to disassociate hydrogen from oxygen in water in some way and that has a limited efficiency no matter what you do.
IMHO, it's a fools errand to advocate something based on unproven technology or what *might* be in the future, especially when we have enough engineering experience to know what the process limits are. In this case, hydrogen sourced from water will simply not be efficient, and any other source would be subject to the same kinds of issues that Natural Gas has.
The process depends only on the efficiency of the fuel cell, as electrolysis can be close to 100%
If you insist.... I don't agree this is true, but hey, go ahead and be wrong... As to the rest of your posting... Clearly you are not voicing a valid position to start with, so why bother trying to correct your ignorance more than once.
Enjoy living the dream.... While it lasts.. (full stop)
Yes, legally you must... Now if they cannot read what you wrote, who's going to know?
She may end up there, but I'm guessing she was not the one who ordered the drives destroyed (at least she didn't document the order).
I was pointing out that demonstrating something at a science fair is far from being viable technology. I was claiming your "It's simple enough a High School Student can do it" argument as being invalid.
Of course I could have just addressed the improbable way you string all these things together in your fight of fancy too, but I figured the Science Fair thing was enough to dismiss you..
On that, I'm done...IMHO If you are serious, you are nuts. If you are trying to be funny, I'm mildly amused.... Take your pick if it matters to you what I think..
the flaw in your reasoning is that making hydrogen will never improve. It will and you can change the focus to just fixing it.
Thermodynamics as they are... Making hydrogen using electrolysis will not improve that much no matter what you do. Sorry, that is just a cold hard fact.
Now, making it using Natural Gas, that's a reasonably good process efficiency wise. But if you are going to consume fossil fuels, it's more efficient and cheaper to burn it in the car directly.
So, my logic is sound and based on the laws of physics and chemistry, not wishful thinking that "it will get better" someday hence.
We will have just traded one set of environmental issues for another doing what you suggest, not to mention the cost of such electric generation capacity is well above fossil fueled options.
So, technically possible? Yes. Financially viable? Nope. Environmentally neutral? Not even close. I don't think you really want to do this.
Agreed, current sources of hydrogen suck. But if we use solar and wind power to drive the electrolysis plant, we could solve two problems at once: - variability of wind and solar vs. grid demand: hydrogen is storable enough that you could produce it when the grid has an excess of available power. - transportation that doesn't depend on fossil fuels.
Storing energy in the form of hydrogen gas is pretty horrible efficiency wise, even in the best of circumstances. And given that Solar/Wind cannot yet compete with fossil fueled electricity generation on cost, this is just NOT a viable solution in terms of cost. I believe that there are much more efficient ways to store electric energy, thus I would think your idea would be better served by advancing other technologies.
Transportation does not have to depend on fossil fuels, even now there are other options. However, these other options are simply not able to provide enough fuel, or capacity for us to do away with fossil fuels. So we are stuck with fossil fuels.
Unless of course you don't mind making everybody pay more for everything... A lot more. I dare say most don't understand the eventual outcome of doing this will be significant numbers of starving poor and the deaths of the least fortunate of the world. How high is that ivory tower....
Depends on what you mean by 100% efficient.
What I'm saying is that if you look at the *total* energy input for electrolysis (splitting water using electricity) and then compute the energy you get out of the fuel cell, it's going to take two units of power in for every unit of power out at best. The situation gets worse when you consider the energy required to store and transport the hydrogen.
Now there is a maximum thermodynamic "efficiency" of this process, and some processes can be pretty efficient compared to THAT, but we are then not talking about the same thing.
Yea, my point exactly. Didn't they have to use a high powered rifle to get that scuba tank to come apart? Or was it C4? I forget....
mmmmmm.. Carbonated water is Soda water! I LIKE it! (Even without the sugar and caffeine added.)
See what I mean? You totally missed what "waste heat" is when talking about heat engines, but I don't suppose they teach basic thermodynamics in high school or to programmers in college...
So, thanks for proving my point...
Current copyright laws are fairly clear and serve their purpose quite well. Are they perfect? What law is? But I shudder to think what things would be like without copyright laws, even given their arcane implementation which doesn't fit well in today's technology.
Look, I'm not defending the Supreme court here or voicing an opinion about the ruling they handed down. I'm simply trying to explain what it means to Aereo and businesses who would try to do things like that. Obviously Aereo's reliance on their novel technical solution, while clever, wasn't enough to win the day.
The suburbs is a situation born from the invention of the car and the available cheap fuel to run them. BUT...
If the point was to be as low impact as we could, you need to consider population control, as in ZERO population.. Which is where all the environmentalists wacko stuff ultimately ends up if you follow it to it's logical conclusion. They want folks to die, oh not anyone specifically, just anyone in general, yet they are unwilling to lead by example...
Then this "smart watch" isn't a watch. I carry a watch to tell the what time it is, when I'm interested in knowing. Why wear a "smart watch" if that's not what it's for?
When all else fails, Knowing the time may not be a huge problem, but it will be nice to have one. It makes it a lot easier to do a lot of things like getting around, cooking and living a well regulated life in the face of everything falling apart around you. You can time how long you boil that water you collected so you know it's safe, or how long to let the stew cook in the dutch oven. It also makes a great addition to my food and water supplies that sits next to the camping equipment, propane and charcoal supply which is next to the battery operated ham radio gear. I keep the firearms and ammo elsewhere.