Wireless power is like the three shell game. It's been popular since 1891 and it's scam 99.9% of the time. Funny how people keep falling for the same scam for hundreds of years - technology changes, but we don't.
Heck, half of Slashdot is STILL falling for the "free electricity" scam, mostly the variety that's been popular since 1960. Practical solar- electric has been "just around the corner" for 55 years.
> Well, is there any (computer) hardware which is *not* "STEM-oriented".
The best-known computer hardware in the world isn't science, engineering, or math oriented, it's consumption and marketing oriented. I suppose it's "technology" in a sense.
Why would it be illegal for them to make a browser that works well with their site? 90% of mobile apps are browsers configured to work with only one site. Are most mobile apps illegal?
You mentioned that a lot of people use Chrome, are you thinking of monopoly laws? A monopoly is when one company is the only company providing a product. That would be of Chrome was the only browser, if the user had no other choice.
In fact, according to your link Chrome has 41% market share. Other sources say less, but anyway that's nowhere near 100%. You can't use any browser other than Chrome? MOST people use some other browser.
I'm a master's student myself. I have a job that's NOT a TA job. Several students are employed where I work. We're getting real-world experience in the field, as opposed to even more time around a school like a TA does.
Come to think of it, my job pays about four times as much as a TA position pays too.
Ps, it is error to just read the part about "the purpose of this law is to ______" and then assume it does exactly that and nothing else, as you have done. The Patriot Act says "the purpose of this act is to protect Americans from terrorism ". That must mean it's a good law, right? Protecting people from terrorism is good.
No, you actually have to read what the law REQUIRES. That's more important than its claims about WHY it exists. In this case, the FCC rule did explicitly require that manufacturers prevent "flashing" and the installation of dd-wrt.
Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US. > The nerd media has been misrepresenting this since day 1
This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:
Describe in detail how the device is protected from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
AFTER we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is still that most manufacturers will in fact lock the firmware, because the FCC's requirements are most readily met by doing so.
Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US. This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:
Describe in detail how the device is protected from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
After we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is still that most manufacturers will in fact lock the firmware, because the FCC's requirements are most readily met by doing so.
Now that they've been informed, they'd be doing it "knowingly". That's the legal term, knowingly.
"Intentionally" is another legal term with specific meaning. In tort, it's one level above "knowingly". Intentionally (in tort) means you're trying to cause that specific effect, it's not a side-effect. If I push you out of the way of an oncoming bus, I knowingly knocked you to the ground, but not intentionally. You hitting the ground wasn't intentional because it wasn't the desired purpose . My intent was to get you out of the way of the bus. Hitting the ground was a side-effect.
The distinction matters mostly with respect to people to whom we owe no duty of care, strangers. I may know that you won't like something I do, but I'm not required to care what you think. On the other hand, it's often illegal to -intentionally- harass you - to do things IN ORDER to piss you off.
It's a TRADE mark, a brand used in commerce. It's perfectly legal for me to put the word "Google" on my post. Google Google Google. What I can't lawfully do is SELL (trade) a competing product under the name "Google". The cops weren't selling anything, so generally trade mark protection doesn't apply. Obviously Google's lawyers might find a way to argue otherwise.
But again, Google, Google, Google. I just wrote Google on my post. Nothing unlawful about writing the Google on something, since I'm not selling this post.
> there is a Constitutional argument that they don't have the authority to impersonate a corporation unless explicitly given that authority.
The US Constitution says that the federal govt is limited to the enumerated powers and all other powers are "reserved to the states or the prople". So the Federal Constitution explicitly reserves to the states "all other powers". It then adds a restriction in the form of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. That's generally interpreted as extending the Bill of Rights to the states. So what we end up with is that the states may do "all other" things except violate the Bill of Rights.
A state Constitution COULD have enumerated powers, but I don't know that this particular state actually does. (City and county are parts of the state) .
> I am not aware of any legal police authority allowing this
There's no law that allows you to eat chocolate ice cream in your bedroom. You may do so because there's no law AGAINST it. So the question is whether any law prohibits this.
Trademark law regulates the use of someone else's mark and name in TRADE, aka commerce. Because the cops weren't engaged in commerce, it probably doesn't apply.
This looks a lot like "tortious interference ", disrupting business relationships through a guilty act which is not merely competitive. However, most jurisdictions require that tortious interference be "intentional", not just negligent. That means it would apply only if the cops were TRYING to harm Google or their customers. If business relationships are harmed as a sidee-effect of whatever the cops were doing, that's legal in most places.
Some jurisdictions, including California, allow for recovery under tortious interference where the defendant both acted NEGLIGENTLY and did a guilty act, they were being a slimeball in some way. One could argue that the cops' actions qualify (and one could argue that they don't) . Again, most jurisdictions don't allow it anyway, they require intent to cause harm.
Someone else may think of another law the police may have violated in this instance, but the laws which are most obviously relevant don't quite cover this case.
> I'll run right off and hack slashdot to look in their database to try to see your "hint"
Like this?: ------- User: Zero__Kelvin Post ID: 25843231 Subject: Re:So what powers does the IETF have on this? Score 0, Flamebait Date:Thursday November 20, 2008 @09:39PM Thread: Kaminsky Bug Options Include "Do Nothing," Says IETF Body: "you need to work on your reading comprehension skills."
"ROTFLMAO. You might want to hone your writing skills to the point where you know how and where to use C apital letters:-)
You are quite mistaken as well. I was able to comprehend the fact that you are not particularly smart without having to read a single complete sentence! -------
Kinda funny, between the two of us, our Slashdot posts are enough to fill a 320 page book.
You seem to be representing yourself as quite the accomplished security professional in your replies to Martin.
That's funny. I actually had an older Slashdot account, then in 2012 I made a new one. My very first post under this account includes a hint as to why I made a new account.
Try rummaging through physical records in physical offices with a stolen key, then try that defense and tell me how it works .
Beause the government is supposed to be "of the people", we have rhw open records laws which establish a procedure for anyone to access government information, using a proper process ratified by the voterd and their representatives. "Hack government systems,then use stolen passwords to access related systems " isn't the process that we the people have agreed upon.
I'm sure that they determinED blue WAS the best choice. Actually they just confirmed what Yahoo and others had already proven. When they did that, 94% of users were using Windows with a CRT and mouse.
Ten or fifteen years later, most users aren't using Windows, a CRT, or a mouse. They're using Android, a 4" LED screen, and a finger. To me it makes sense to go back and double-check UI choices that were good before and see if they are still best.
Imagine if someone found the key to a government building under the door mat. That's clearly a major security lapse.
Imagine if they next USED that key to enter the building on a weekend and rummaged through the offices inside. That's second-degree burglary.
This guy found a way to retrieve the admin password (key), and should have stopped there. He could have just said "hey look, the admin password is exposed". Instead, he USED the admin password to log in and rummage around. I've been doing network security for twenty years. I've never seen any reason to do that. Showing that the password (or key) is available to bad guys is more than sufficient.
Imagine if someone found the key to a government building under the door mat. That's clearly a major security lapse.
Imagine if they next USED that key to enter the building on a weekend and rummaged through the offices inside. That's second-degree burglary.
This guy found a way to retrieve the admin password (key), and should have stopped there. Instead, he USED the admin password to log in and rummage around. I've been doing network security for twenty years. I've never seen any reason to do that.
You're probably thinking of the two SR-71B trainer aircraft which had an extra cockpit added above and behind the SRO position. The SR-71A, the standard model, had one cockpit - with two seats. One seat for the pilot and one for the RSO (reconnaissance system officer). You can see the RSO's window in this photo: http://www.sr-71.org/photogall...
Here's a video of a SR-71 pilot showing the two positions and talking about the roles of the pilot and the RSO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Interestingly, neither person can fly and land the plane by themselves. The RSO did the navigation, telling the plane where to go (auto navigation to specified points is required at mach 3), while the pilot controlled altitude, rudders for landing, etc. If either the pilot or the RSO became incapacitated or the intercom was lost, they would have to bail out.
If you're an aerospace engineer, you'll recognize. pmin=2â...mâ...g(Mach2â...cL)maxâ...a2â...S. If you're not, suffice to say that wings work by air pressure, and speed. As air pressure reduces with altitude, velocity must increase. The highest flying aircraft (SR-71) had to also be the fastest - planes can't go that high without going that fast. Designing planes to fly mach 3 means making different design decisions than designing an airliner. That's why a 777 flies half as high as jets can fly - because otherwise it would have to be built like the SR-71. Two-seater airliners don't work so well.
You may note that an electric motor must use a propeller/ fan design. It can't be a ramjet, scramjet, etc. Fans (electric or otherwise) need air to operate, more air pressure than scramjets need. Therefore an electrically powered plane will have a LOWER service ceiling than a jet has.
> . You can design a ultra-high-bypass turbofan that's electrically driven and suffer no loss of speed. It'll just be a fan and the turbine engine core is replaced with an electric motor.
So you're basically saying?: >> You'd still need the same turbofans, just with heavy electrical windings in the middle rather hollow combustion cavities.
Batteries, or solar cells, don't make thrust by themselves either. You'd still need the same turbofans, just with heavy electrical windings in the middle rather hollow combustion cavities. Electric motors tend to be quite a bit heavier than empty cavities are, so I'd expect the electric engine to be probably a bit heavier.
You could put a prop on an electric motor. That limits maximum speed, and still electric motors are heavy.
> The fuel system itself
Such as the fuel lines and fittings , the hollow copper tubes? Compare with the copper required to carry thousands of amps safely, with heavy-duty insulation. The fuel line and fittings are probably lighter than electrical lines and fittings capable of transmitting the same amount of power.
> If wing didn't have to carry fuel could it be more efficient?
Wing efficiency is determined by shape and surface smoothness. What's inside doesn't matter, except a snall effectbthat carrying load in the wing is slightly more efficient than carrying the same load inside the fuselage, by eliminating the bending moment on the wing root. Putting solar panels on the SURFACE of the wing, where it's right in the critical boundary layer airstream , is a much bigger design constraint than putting something IN the wing.
> I don't see how the corporation encouraged this behavior. If there was a "trophy", yes. However, as far as I know, the trophies are from third party sites and not from Snapchat.
The plaintiff says Snapchat has/had a "100 MPH" trophy. Somebody who posted a comment here says they didn't. I don't know. That fact, and the other relevant facts, will come out at trial if not before. I'm not assuming either side is right at this point. I'm just saying that IF Snapchat knowingly, recklessly, or negligently caused an increased risk of crashes, they can be held liable, with comparative negligence (shared fault) in many states.
"Fighting words" is a free speech term, related to the state criminalizing certain actions which include speech as a component of the crime. In other words, "fighting words" means the state can make it ILLEGAL to call someone a "god damn cocksucker".
Again, civil law (suing someone) is concerned with CAUSATION. Violating a contract isn't a CRIME, but it may cause damages, for which you can be sued. Failing to set the parking brake on your car isn't a crime, but it may cause damage, and you'd be liable for the damage in a civil suit. You're responsible for any damage you cause; whether or not your action is criminal is completely separate.
Calling someone names may cause a fight. That's all a civil law suit cares about, cause and effect. It doesn't MATTER whether those particular insults constitute a criminal offense in that particular situation, and in that particular jurisdiction. If my actions cause damage to you, I owe you to make right the damage, unless some specific exception applies.
Here, if Snapchat said to teenagers "we'll give you a trophy if you drive over 100 MPH", that could have caused some teenagers to drive over 100 MPH. It's so far unclear what exactly Snapchat did, what kind of trophy may have been offered.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless power is like the three shell game. It's been popular since 1891 and it's scam 99.9% of the time. Funny how people keep falling for the same scam for hundreds of years - technology changes, but we don't.
Heck, half of Slashdot is STILL falling for the "free electricity" scam, mostly the variety that's been popular since 1960. Practical solar- electric has been "just around the corner" for 55 years.
> Well, is there any (computer) hardware which is *not* "STEM-oriented".
The best-known computer hardware in the world isn't science, engineering, or math oriented, it's consumption and marketing oriented. I suppose it's "technology" in a sense.
Why would it be illegal for them to make a browser that works well with their site? 90% of mobile apps are browsers configured to work with only one site. Are most mobile apps illegal?
You mentioned that a lot of people use Chrome, are you thinking of monopoly laws? A monopoly is when one company is the only company providing a product. That would be of Chrome was the only browser, if the user had no other choice.
In fact, according to your link Chrome has 41% market share. Other sources say less, but anyway that's nowhere near 100%. You can't use any browser other than Chrome? MOST people use some other browser.
I'm a master's student myself. I have a job that's NOT a TA job. Several students are employed where I work. We're getting real-world experience in the field, as opposed to even more time around a school like a TA does.
Come to think of it, my job pays about four times as much as a TA position pays too.
Ps, it is error to just read the part about "the purpose of this law is to ______" and then assume it does exactly that and nothing else, as you have done. The Patriot Act says "the purpose of this act is to protect Americans from terrorism ". That must mean it's a good law, right? Protecting people from terrorism is good.
No, you actually have to read what the law REQUIRES. That's more important than its claims about WHY it exists. In this case, the FCC rule did explicitly require that manufacturers prevent "flashing" and the installation of dd-wrt.
Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US.
> The nerd media has been misrepresenting this since day 1
This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:
Describe in detail how the device is protected
from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
AFTER we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is still that most manufacturers will in fact lock the firmware, because the FCC's requirements are most readily met by doing so.
Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US. This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:
Describe in detail how the device is protected
from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
After we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is still that most manufacturers will in fact lock the firmware, because the FCC's requirements are most readily met by doing so.
Now that they've been informed, they'd be doing it "knowingly". That's the legal term, knowingly.
"Intentionally" is another legal term with specific meaning. In tort, it's one level above "knowingly". Intentionally (in tort) means you're trying to cause that specific effect, it's not a side-effect. If I push you out of the way of an oncoming bus, I knowingly knocked you to the ground, but not intentionally. You hitting the ground wasn't intentional because it wasn't the desired purpose . My intent was to get you out of the way of the bus. Hitting the ground was a side-effect.
The distinction matters mostly with respect to people to whom we owe no duty of care, strangers. I may know that you won't like something I do, but I'm not required to care what you think. On the other hand, it's often illegal to -intentionally- harass you - to do things IN ORDER to piss you off.
It's a TRADE mark, a brand used in commerce. It's perfectly legal for me to put the word "Google" on my post. Google Google Google. What I can't lawfully do is SELL (trade) a competing product under the name "Google". The cops weren't selling anything, so generally trade mark protection doesn't apply. Obviously Google's lawyers might find a way to argue otherwise.
But again, Google, Google, Google. I just wrote Google on my post. Nothing unlawful about writing the Google on something, since I'm not selling this post.
> there is a Constitutional argument that they don't have the authority to impersonate a corporation unless explicitly given that authority.
The US Constitution says that the federal govt is limited to the enumerated powers and all other powers are "reserved to the states or the prople". So the Federal Constitution explicitly reserves to the states "all other powers". It then adds a restriction in the form of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. That's generally interpreted as extending the Bill of Rights to the states. So what we end up with is that the states may do "all other" things except violate the Bill of Rights.
A state Constitution COULD have enumerated powers, but I don't know that this particular state actually does. (City and county are parts of the state) .
> I am not aware of any legal police authority allowing this
There's no law that allows you to eat chocolate ice cream in your bedroom. You may do so because there's no law AGAINST it. So the question is whether any law prohibits this.
Trademark law regulates the use of someone else's mark and name in TRADE, aka commerce. Because the cops weren't engaged in commerce, it probably doesn't apply.
This looks a lot like "tortious interference ", disrupting business relationships through a guilty act which is not merely competitive. However, most jurisdictions require that tortious interference be "intentional", not just negligent. That means it would apply only if the cops were TRYING to harm Google or their customers. If business relationships are harmed as a sidee-effect of whatever the cops were doing, that's legal in most places.
Some jurisdictions, including California, allow for recovery under tortious interference where the defendant both acted NEGLIGENTLY and did a guilty act, they were being a slimeball in some way. One could argue that the cops' actions qualify (and one could argue that they don't) . Again, most jurisdictions don't allow it anyway, they require intent to cause harm.
Someone else may think of another law the police may have violated in this instance, but the laws which are most obviously relevant don't quite cover this case.
Bison from Buffalo, New York, are known to bully other Buffalo bison, who in turn bully (buffalo) other New York bison. In other words:
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
> I'll run right off and hack slashdot to look in their database to try to see your "hint"
Like this?:
-------
User: Zero__Kelvin
Post ID: 25843231
Subject: Re:So what powers does the IETF have on this?
Score 0, Flamebait
Date:Thursday November 20, 2008 @09:39PM
Thread: Kaminsky Bug Options Include "Do Nothing," Says IETF
Body:
"you need to work on your reading comprehension skills."
"ROTFLMAO. You might want to hone your writing skills to the point where you know how and where to use C apital letters :-)
You are quite mistaken as well. I was able to comprehend the fact that you are not particularly smart without having to read a single complete sentence!
-------
Kinda funny, between the two of us, our Slashdot posts are enough to fill a 320 page book.
You seem to be representing yourself as quite the accomplished security professional in your replies to Martin.
That's funny. I actually had an older Slashdot account, then in 2012 I made a new one. My very first post under this account includes a hint as to why I made a new account.
Try rummaging through physical records in physical offices with a stolen key, then try that defense and tell me how it works .
Beause the government is supposed to be "of the people", we have rhw open records laws which establish a procedure for anyone to access government information, using a proper process ratified by the voterd and their representatives. "Hack government systems ,then use stolen passwords to access related systems " isn't the process that we the people have agreed upon.
I'm sure that they determinED blue WAS the best choice. Actually they just confirmed what Yahoo and others had already proven. When they did that, 94% of users were using Windows with a CRT and mouse.
Ten or fifteen years later, most users aren't using Windows, a CRT, or a mouse. They're using Android, a 4" LED screen, and a finger. To me it makes sense to go back and double-check UI choices that were good before and see if they are still best.
Imagine if someone found the key to a government building under the door mat. That's clearly a major security lapse.
Imagine if they next USED that key to enter the building on a weekend and rummaged through the offices inside. That's second-degree burglary.
This guy found a way to retrieve the admin password (key), and should have stopped there. He could have just said "hey look, the admin password is exposed". Instead, he USED the admin password to log in and rummage around. I've been doing network security for twenty years. I've never seen any reason to do that. Showing that the password (or key) is available to bad guys is more than sufficient.
Imagine if someone found the key to a government building under the door mat. That's clearly a major security lapse.
Imagine if they next USED that key to enter the building on a weekend and rummaged through the offices inside. That's second-degree burglary.
This guy found a way to retrieve the admin password (key), and should have stopped there. Instead, he USED the admin password to log in and rummage around. I've been doing network security for twenty years. I've never seen any reason to do that.
You're probably thinking of the two SR-71B trainer aircraft which had an extra cockpit added above and behind the SRO position. The SR-71A, the standard model, had one cockpit - with two seats. One seat for the pilot and one for the RSO (reconnaissance system officer). You can see the RSO's window in this photo:
http://www.sr-71.org/photogall...
Here's a video of a SR-71 pilot showing the two positions and talking about the roles of the pilot and the RSO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Interestingly, neither person can fly and land the plane by themselves. The RSO did the navigation, telling the plane where to go (auto navigation to specified points is required at mach 3), while the pilot controlled altitude, rudders for landing, etc. If either the pilot or the RSO became incapacitated or the intercom was lost, they would have to bail out.
If you're an aerospace engineer, you'll recognize. pmin=2â...mâ...g(Mach2â...cL)maxâ...a2â...S.
If you're not, suffice to say that wings work by air pressure, and speed. As air pressure reduces with altitude, velocity must increase. The highest flying aircraft (SR-71) had to also be the fastest - planes can't go that high without going that fast. Designing planes to fly mach 3 means making different design decisions than designing an airliner. That's why a 777 flies half as high as jets can fly - because otherwise it would have to be built like the SR-71. Two-seater airliners don't work so well.
You may note that an electric motor must use a propeller/ fan design. It can't be a ramjet, scramjet, etc. Fans (electric or otherwise) need air to operate, more air pressure than scramjets need. Therefore an electrically powered plane will have a LOWER service ceiling than a jet has.
> . You can design a ultra-high-bypass turbofan that's electrically driven and suffer no loss of speed. It'll just be a fan and the turbine engine core is replaced with an electric motor.
So you're basically saying?:
>> You'd still need the same turbofans, just with heavy electrical windings in the middle rather hollow combustion cavities.
Well the Tesla has half the range, costs 50%, and it's 30% slower 0-60. On the other hand, they are both cars. :)
Batteries, or solar cells, don't make thrust by themselves either. You'd still need the same turbofans, just with heavy electrical windings in the middle rather hollow combustion cavities. Electric motors tend to be quite a bit heavier than empty cavities are, so I'd expect the electric engine to be probably a bit heavier.
You could put a prop on an electric motor. That limits maximum speed, and still electric motors are heavy.
> The fuel system itself
Such as the fuel lines and fittings , the hollow copper tubes? Compare with the copper required to carry thousands of amps safely, with heavy-duty insulation. The fuel line and fittings are probably lighter than electrical lines and fittings capable of transmitting the same amount of power.
> If wing didn't have to carry fuel could it be more efficient?
Wing efficiency is determined by shape and surface smoothness. What's inside doesn't matter, except a snall effectbthat carrying load in the wing is slightly more efficient than carrying the same load inside the fuselage, by eliminating the bending moment on the wing root. Putting solar panels on the SURFACE of the wing, where it's right in the critical boundary layer airstream , is a much bigger design constraint than putting something IN the wing.
> I don't see how the corporation encouraged this behavior. If there was a "trophy", yes. However, as far as I know, the trophies are from third party sites and not from Snapchat.
The plaintiff says Snapchat has/had a "100 MPH" trophy. Somebody who posted a comment here says they didn't. I don't know. That fact, and the other relevant facts, will come out at trial if not before. I'm not assuming either side is right at this point. I'm just saying that IF Snapchat knowingly, recklessly, or negligently caused an increased risk of crashes, they can be held liable, with comparative negligence (shared fault) in many states.
"Fighting words" is a free speech term, related to the state criminalizing certain actions which include speech as a component of the crime. In other words, "fighting words" means the state can make it ILLEGAL to call someone a "god damn cocksucker".
Again, civil law (suing someone) is concerned with CAUSATION. Violating a contract isn't a CRIME, but it may cause damages, for which you can be sued. Failing to set the parking brake on your car isn't a crime, but it may cause damage, and you'd be liable for the damage in a civil suit. You're responsible for any damage you cause; whether or not your action is criminal is completely separate.
Calling someone names may cause a fight. That's all a civil law suit cares about, cause and effect. It doesn't MATTER whether those particular insults constitute a criminal offense in that particular situation, and in that particular jurisdiction. If my actions cause damage to you, I owe you to make right the damage, unless some specific exception applies.
Here, if Snapchat said to teenagers "we'll give you a trophy if you drive over 100 MPH", that could have caused some teenagers to drive over 100 MPH. It's so far unclear what exactly Snapchat did, what kind of trophy may have been offered.