Chipping your car is one way to get the job done, but another way is to entirely replace the ECU with an aftermarket unit. Then, you can change variables on the fly, which has applications in aftermarket turbo and supercharging of cars. Some ECUs are total replacements (AEM, TEC), and some are piggyback units, which work in concert with the factory ECU (Link for '99+ model year Miatas). I've got a Link in my car, and it's part of an aftermarket turbo setup. A big part of setting everything up is tuning the car, which basically means either using a dyno while you make dynamic changes to fuel supply, wastegate settings, timing, etc. or having one person drive while another checks readings and makes changes. It's a lot of work, but you learn more about how a modern engine works than you'd ever have thought possible. It seems to me that this gives you more control and insight than you'd get just changing the relatively few things that chippers end up doing; mostly they end up altering timing, and not much else. By advancing timing, they get a bit more power, and you need to user higher octane gas to compensate for the increased risk of detonation.
From the link in the post itself, for the article, which claims to demonstrate that weapons aren't prohibited in any way in space...
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.
Okay, but if only lab conditions and an electron beam can create this media, what the hell can read it? The point of using electrons is the resolution, so I don't know how using a significantly less-precise technology for reading the disks would work, given the incredible density of data on the discs.
I don't think so; it's no longer a matter of optics, so optical deformities in the surface of the disk would not be an issue. And since I would guess the material that made up the disk itself would need only to be relatively transparent to the electron beam, it could be a lot less scratch-prone than lexan. The bigger problem might be certain kinds of dust, with unpredictable qualities that could affect the path or focus of the beam.
Doing this by yourself would be, by its very definition, illegal. You would be producing, for export, a technology that is deemed "munitions," and thus subject to Dept. of Commerce Export controls. Making it open-source would also put you at risk of being deemed an exporter, just like Phil Zimmerman had to deal with. In this case, though, the argument could not be made that your product directly helps freedom of speech, or any other civil right for that matter, and you'd be screwed. Your safest option, but the one that brings the greatest risk of your ideas being bastardized, is to do it under the auspices of a defense contractor. They know the ins and outs, and you could sell it to them (after you came up with a fairly rough proof of concept) as a new product offering that they could make money selling to smaller nations, more cheaply than their higher-end stuff. Kind of like an entry-level product line. But even in this situation, open-sourcing it is essentially going to be suicide.
I had this job, where there wasn't much to do, but I was forced to play foosball all day and listen to MP3s. Oh, and we were all force-fed cappucinos on a regular basis. Oh god, the horror...
I know that if I were ever arrested, I'd rather have a lot of potential defense attorneys notified than my mom. For one thing, I'd need a lawyer, and for two, my mom is a frickin' moron.:)
Taylor, the RNC spokeswoman, said the party is simply trying to expand its reach. She's heard the knocks on pop-up ads but said they need not be an annoyance.
"If people don't want to read it, they'll just click the little `x'" to close the ad, she said.
If only we could click on a "little x" to close this presidential term as well...
Don't forget about the arrogance one encountered when asking for help, either. I've sucked up and dealt with some amazing Napoleonic complexes when using software before, but these guys were such bastards I actually chose a commercial solution over them in the end. I draw the line at accepting condescending remarks from people who don't know how to keep a listserv running properly while failing to address the question asked of them.
Uh...do you know why we're not looking for Al Qaeda in England, the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, or Iceland? Because terrorist organizations need places from which to operate. The places from which they do operate aren't usually entirely invisible, and therefore are known about by regional authorities. Training camps, state aid, safe havens to meet in person...these all require the tacit acceptance of the country where they are located. You never hear, and never did hear, of training camps in Korea, because Korea isn't willing to tolerate terrorists. This is the point behind labeling countries as sponsors of terrorism. So tell me this: if a group is working towards developing a nuclear capability with the goal of detonating the weapon in the US, how comfy will countries feel if they know we'll be able to backtrace to the source of the weapon and where it was made? Do you think they'll be willing to tolerate it? And before you shoot out some simple-minded and ill-informed quip about countries versus terrorists, you might want to read what our openly-stated response policy is for a WMD attack on our soil; it involves a nuclear response.
This doesn't even show a picture of a solid object,instead just giving an artist's rendition...based on that we could just as easily say that Toshiba is coming out with an X-Wing fighter. There wasn't any indication that there's any software written yet either; the original article note that they used a screenshot from PalmOS. I'd me a lot more impressed if they had ANYTHING besides a "gee, wouldn't it be nice if..." concept.
The game now is as it always was: deterrence. The point of being able to back-trace nuclear material, whether it be fallout from a nuclear weapon or residue from a radiological (or "dirty") bomb, is to be able to determine who was behind the attack. Yes, terrorism is hard to fight on a battlefield, but it's not exactly a radical thought that if we find a country to have been complicit in any way with such an attack, we'll force them to face us on our own terms. We've bulldozed through two countries so far because of 9/11, and whether you agree with the reasons for doing that or not, there's no way we'd hesitate to do it again if a nuclear weapon of any form was detonated here. Our best bet at preventing this kind of attack is demonstrating that we can figure out who to destroy after the fact.
There's a long list of things it might interfere with, unfortunately...For example:
Mormon underwear, and delivery of local, targeted ads. Fruit basket creation, and delivery of local, targeted ads. Various small farm animals, and delivery of local, targeted ads. The square root of Bob Dole's left ass cheek, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
It's good to know that these online providers want to protect all that important stuff for us!
Yeah, I see your point. I rue the thought of having to face possible extradition for breaking into foreign banks, attacks on the infrastructure of other countries, and stock manipulation schemes on other continents. I mean, really, what's the world coming to? As long as it's not a local crime, why should I have to be concerned with consequences?
My parents used to take away my PC for relatively minor transgressions. In school, I was considered a goody-goody. To my parents, and I kid you not, I was a "punk." Funny, I was the only punk in school never to get in trouble. And now I'm a computer security consultant, doing quite well, in fact, with a book in the making through Syngress Publishing and other such fun things. I've worked in the building where the A Root server used to be (until just very very recently) at Network Solutions/VeriSign, and I've done a few different types of work at over a dozen Fortune 100 Corporations.
But as for my parents...keeping their computer safe? Fuuuuuuuck them.:)
I don't agree, though. I don't think it's like a firewall in that it's not content-ignorant, while a firewall is. When I see someone I do want to talk to, or something I do want to interact with, I turn them off and take them out of my ears. And by doing this, I produce a powerful effect; I've gone from the "Not interested" stance of having headphones on to the invitation to interact that is clearly demonstrated by obviously choosing to lower the shield for a particular person. And I am able to make topical decisions as to when and why I'll do that based on my other senses, which are not at all affected by the headphones. So it's more like a good spam filter than a firewall.
And honestly, when was the last time a total stranger came up to you on the street to tell you something you wanted to hear?:)
I carry an MD player with me anywhere; I use it not just for music that suits my mood or for entertainment (life is more fun with its own soundtrack, don't you think?) but also to basically provide an excuse to ignore people (panhandlers, sidewalk vendors, ex-girlfriends...just kidding about the sidewalk vendors) that I don't want to interact with. But I never realized before that when I see someone else with headphones on, I've got this subconscious awareness of a kind of bubble around them which filters out certain kinds of interaction. I'd never think of asking a question or making small talk.
As for the programmers of these apps, in the words of my dad: "Screeeew them."
Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. People want Windows to be more secure, but they don't want anything to change. Well, it can't be both ways, and I'm glad that Microsoft is finally starting to expect people to deal with some loss in functionality and pain in exchange for security.
Slashdot Mirror
Chipping your car is one way to get the job done, but another way is to entirely replace the ECU with an aftermarket unit. Then, you can change variables on the fly, which has applications in aftermarket turbo and supercharging of cars. Some ECUs are total replacements (AEM, TEC), and some are piggyback units, which work in concert with the factory ECU (Link for '99+ model year Miatas). I've got a Link in my car, and it's part of an aftermarket turbo setup. A big part of setting everything up is tuning the car, which basically means either using a dyno while you make dynamic changes to fuel supply, wastegate settings, timing, etc. or having one person drive while another checks readings and makes changes. It's a lot of work, but you learn more about how a modern engine works than you'd ever have thought possible. It seems to me that this gives you more control and insight than you'd get just changing the relatively few things that chippers end up doing; mostly they end up altering timing, and not much else. By advancing timing, they get a bit more power, and you need to user higher octane gas to compensate for the increased risk of detonation.
A computer that won't exactly say "1" and won't exactly say "0" either...EXACTLY like one of my past bosses when I needed a vacation day!
From the link in the post itself, for the article, which claims to demonstrate that weapons aren't prohibited in any way in space...
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.
Okay, but if only lab conditions and an electron beam can create this media, what the hell can read it? The point of using electrons is the resolution, so I don't know how using a significantly less-precise technology for reading the disks would work, given the incredible density of data on the discs.
I don't think so; it's no longer a matter of optics, so optical deformities in the surface of the disk would not be an issue. And since I would guess the material that made up the disk itself would need only to be relatively transparent to the electron beam, it could be a lot less scratch-prone than lexan. The bigger problem might be certain kinds of dust, with unpredictable qualities that could affect the path or focus of the beam.
Doing this by yourself would be, by its very definition, illegal. You would be producing, for export, a technology that is deemed "munitions," and thus subject to Dept. of Commerce Export controls. Making it open-source would also put you at risk of being deemed an exporter, just like Phil Zimmerman had to deal with. In this case, though, the argument could not be made that your product directly helps freedom of speech, or any other civil right for that matter, and you'd be screwed.
Your safest option, but the one that brings the greatest risk of your ideas being bastardized, is to do it under the auspices of a defense contractor. They know the ins and outs, and you could sell it to them (after you came up with a fairly rough proof of concept) as a new product offering that they could make money selling to smaller nations, more cheaply than their higher-end stuff. Kind of like an entry-level product line. But even in this situation, open-sourcing it is essentially going to be suicide.
I had this job, where there wasn't much to do, but I was forced to play foosball all day and listen to MP3s. Oh, and we were all force-fed cappucinos on a regular basis. Oh god, the horror...
I know that if I were ever arrested, I'd rather have a lot of potential defense attorneys notified than my mom. For one thing, I'd need a lawyer, and for two, my mom is a frickin' moron. :)
Taylor, the RNC spokeswoman, said the party is simply trying to expand its reach. She's heard the knocks on pop-up ads but said they need not be an annoyance.
"If people don't want to read it, they'll just click the little `x'" to close the ad, she said.
If only we could click on a "little x" to close this presidential term as well...
Don't forget about the arrogance one encountered when asking for help, either. I've sucked up and dealt with some amazing Napoleonic complexes when using software before, but these guys were such bastards I actually chose a commercial solution over them in the end. I draw the line at accepting condescending remarks from people who don't know how to keep a listserv running properly while failing to address the question asked of them.
Uh...do you know why we're not looking for Al Qaeda in England, the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, or Iceland? Because terrorist organizations need places from which to operate. The places from which they do operate aren't usually entirely invisible, and therefore are known about by regional authorities. Training camps, state aid, safe havens to meet in person...these all require the tacit acceptance of the country where they are located. You never hear, and never did hear, of training camps in Korea, because Korea isn't willing to tolerate terrorists. This is the point behind labeling countries as sponsors of terrorism. So tell me this: if a group is working towards developing a nuclear capability with the goal of detonating the weapon in the US, how comfy will countries feel if they know we'll be able to backtrace to the source of the weapon and where it was made? Do you think they'll be willing to tolerate it? And before you shoot out some simple-minded and ill-informed quip about countries versus terrorists, you might want to read what our openly-stated response policy is for a WMD attack on our soil; it involves a nuclear response.
This doesn't even show a picture of a solid object,instead just giving an artist's rendition...based on that we could just as easily say that Toshiba is coming out with an X-Wing fighter. There wasn't any indication that there's any software written yet either; the original article note that they used a screenshot from PalmOS. I'd me a lot more impressed if they had ANYTHING besides a "gee, wouldn't it be nice if..." concept.
The game now is as it always was: deterrence. The point of being able to back-trace nuclear material, whether it be fallout from a nuclear weapon or residue from a radiological (or "dirty") bomb, is to be able to determine who was behind the attack. Yes, terrorism is hard to fight on a battlefield, but it's not exactly a radical thought that if we find a country to have been complicit in any way with such an attack, we'll force them to face us on our own terms. We've bulldozed through two countries so far because of 9/11, and whether you agree with the reasons for doing that or not, there's no way we'd hesitate to do it again if a nuclear weapon of any form was detonated here. Our best bet at preventing this kind of attack is demonstrating that we can figure out who to destroy after the fact.
Don't be silly. Aliens wouldn't be going to Mars to do anal probes...there aren't any rednecks there!
There's a long list of things it might interfere with, unfortunately...For example:
Mormon underwear, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
Fruit basket creation, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
Various small farm animals, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
The square root of Bob Dole's left ass cheek, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
It's good to know that these online providers want to protect all that important stuff for us!
And software piracy is illegal in Australia. What's your point?
Yeah, I see your point. I rue the thought of having to face possible extradition for breaking into foreign banks, attacks on the infrastructure of other countries, and stock manipulation schemes on other continents. I mean, really, what's the world coming to? As long as it's not a local crime, why should I have to be concerned with consequences?
My parents used to take away my PC for relatively minor transgressions. In school, I was considered a goody-goody. To my parents, and I kid you not, I was a "punk." Funny, I was the only punk in school never to get in trouble. And now I'm a computer security consultant, doing quite well, in fact, with a book in the making through Syngress Publishing and other such fun things. I've worked in the building where the A Root server used to be (until just very very recently) at Network Solutions/VeriSign, and I've done a few different types of work at over a dozen Fortune 100 Corporations.
:)
But as for my parents...keeping their computer safe? Fuuuuuuuck them.
I don't agree, though. I don't think it's like a firewall in that it's not content-ignorant, while a firewall is. When I see someone I do want to talk to, or something I do want to interact with, I turn them off and take them out of my ears. And by doing this, I produce a powerful effect; I've gone from the "Not interested" stance of having headphones on to the invitation to interact that is clearly demonstrated by obviously choosing to lower the shield for a particular person. And I am able to make topical decisions as to when and why I'll do that based on my other senses, which are not at all affected by the headphones. So it's more like a good spam filter than a firewall.
:)
And honestly, when was the last time a total stranger came up to you on the street to tell you something you wanted to hear?
I carry an MD player with me anywhere; I use it not just for music that suits my mood or for entertainment (life is more fun with its own soundtrack, don't you think?) but also to basically provide an excuse to ignore people (panhandlers, sidewalk vendors, ex-girlfriends...just kidding about the sidewalk vendors) that I don't want to interact with. But I never realized before that when I see someone else with headphones on, I've got this subconscious awareness of a kind of bubble around them which filters out certain kinds of interaction. I'd never think of asking a question or making small talk.
I bet it takes WAY more material to make a stupid user. Why not cut the fat there instead of going after the little guy? :)
As for the programmers of these apps, in the words of my dad: "Screeeew them."
Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. People want Windows to be more secure, but they don't want anything to change. Well, it can't be both ways, and I'm glad that Microsoft is finally starting to expect people to deal with some loss in functionality and pain in exchange for security.
You should visit Texas sometime. That's all I have to say.
Actually, I think that'll be in their new ad campaign...
'Cause IT'S A NOTEBOOK! Yeah, IT'S A NOTEBOOK! It's more expensive , BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO MAKE!
Stop with open source?
Behold, my confused fellow...
Cluestick upside head.