My focus at the time was web sites, so I wasn't paying much attention to circumvention devices.
I owned a web hosting company and this was when there wasn't yet the content-producing industry that exists today, so some of our customers could well be using content with questionable licensing rights. In fact, for adult content, there were basically five provides - Dave Lace, Dave Thompson, another Dave whose last name I've forgotten, Gabe, and a Suze Randall. Two of those content producers were also our customers. So I owned a hosting company, and had customers who were both content producers and users of content. My interest was in a good process for all of us to handle copyright issues related to web site content.
I might find it later, if I don't have something else higher priority to do. I'd use Google's date filters for 1998 and early 1999, with my username and site: slashdot.com
It would probably be easier to find on some other forums, like GFY.com, if posts that old are still available there.
> I was correct. Of course, nobody asked me. > It was obviously written by big copyright owners who were writing it for their own purposes, rather than being a general-purpose law
If it were "written by big copyright owners for their own purposes", you wouldn't be able to end it by simply saying "I disagree, I don't think I'm infringing", and have the content stay up.
We DID ask you for input, we DID ask you to participate. Specifically *I* asked right here on Slashdot.
I was involved in multiple drafts of the DMCA before it became law, discussing the draft with people involved in many different aspects of the internet. People had different concerns and things were changed in the drafts to improve it.
Three major categories of people had different concerns: Content producers Hosting companies and ISPs Web sites using content
Previously, when a content producer saw their content was being unlawfully copied on a web site, they would contact the hosting company. The liability of the hosting company was questionable - probably AFTER having received notice, they would most likely be liable if they didn't take it down, but that was murky. Different hosting companies had different policies. Some shut the site down right away. Some ignored the notices, which meant content producers would contact their upstream providers, who would often put pressure on the hosting company. Different companies had different policies about protecting their customers from invalid complaints (fair use etc). Most would just shut it down - they didn't want to get involved in a legal fight. It was all very inconsistent and messy.
Here's the process we ended up with:
Content provider would notify the site or hosting company, identifying exactly what infringed copyright.
Hosting company would inform the site owner, who had three options: A. Deny the infringement (counter-notice) B. Take down the content C. Ignore the notice
If the site owner / poster denies there is infringement, that's the end of it. The hosting company is not liable, because they've received a statement saying there is no infringement. For some reason we didn't anticipate, very few people choose this option. It's the best and easiest option if you have content that isn't infringing.
Once the site owner or the person who posted the content says it doesn't infringe, the DMCA notice process ends and the content producer has to sue in federal court in order to move forward.
If the site owner sees there is likely infringement and takes the content down, that resolves the complaint process also. (Though the producer *could* still sue in federal court).
If the site owner ignores the notice and doesn't say "nope, not infringing", the web host will take down the content. This is the worst option. We didn't expect it would be the most common. Much better for the web site to respond to the notice somehow - either by taking down infringing content if they agree, or by sending back a note saying it's not infringing (a counter notice).
That seemed like a good, fair process, to most people. It's not exactly what content producers would choose if they got to pick, and not exactly what people re-using content would pick, but it's a fair compromise, we thought.
Two things didn't work out the way we expected. First, very few people send back a counter-notice. I can't explain why this is. It's so easy to just send back an email saying "nope, I disagree. This isn't infringement because it's educational fair use. That essentially nullifies the original DMCA notice.
Secondly, perhaps BECAUSE almost nobody responds to a DMCA notice, some producers started sending out way too many notices, not being sufficiently careful that they are accurate. Nobody anticipated that at the time the law was written. If I had an opportunity to do it over again, I would have suggested adding penalities for recklessly sending noticed, but that possibility never came up in the discussion.
Initially, the law was welcomed by most people in all the different areas. It set up a consistent, fair process that almost everyone used. Most people running sites and posting content were reasonably happy with it - they didn't violate copyright anyway, at least not much (maybe some clip art), and if they received a notice they'd gladly swap out any infringing content. They were glad to know that in a dispute, the hosting company would back them up - as long as they notified the hosting company that there WAS a
Certainly the long range cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk block IV with a range of 900 nautical miles, are a significant asset. That's what I always think of when people talk about military use of drones in an attack role - we've been using them heavily for a long, long time. The Tomahawk was developed in the 1970s. For attack, it's much better than a quadcopter in almost every conceivable way.
Marine Corps General James Cartwright stated "Today, unless you want to go nuclear, [the response time is] measured in days, maybe weeks".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
There are many bases around the world where the military keeps weapons and people. The Air Force can bring long range bombers on target carrying conventional weapons. The Navy has carriers and submarines with conventional weapons positioned all around the world.
There are up to seven US carriers at sea at any given time, each carrying FA-18s with a combat radius of 380 miles. Some are enroute, some are near hot spots. That gives the US the ability to strike *those* few places quickly. At a top speed of around 35 mph, they don't go somewhere else very fast.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Included in the carrier battle groups are those submarines you mentioned. There are more submarines, mostly Los Angeles class. They stay submerged for about seven weeks at a time, listening to low frequency command transmissions at a rate of twelve characters per hour. The Los Angeles class has a top speed of 23mph and carries carries Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 800-1500 miles. This covers a lot more area than the carrier groups.
Air Expeditionary Groups can deploy with 48 hours.
What happens from this announcement, that Symantec cares about, is that their name is in the headlines. Free advertising.
Policy makers, the President and Congressional committees, already know from classified (an unclassified) intelligence that China is spying on the US all over the place. This latest marketing announcement by Symantec isn't going to make much difference to policy makers. Symantec doesn't care that much anyway - they don't have a major Chinese competitor they are trying to get rid of.
The free advertising is what Symantec cares about. If my company had uncovered this incident, we would absolutely put out a press release right away, in order to get our name in the press.
Heck, look at any of my CVEs, such as 2012-0206. https://www.securityfocus.com/... Do you think I thought about what the president was doing when I found and reported that? No, but I do very much like the first three words in the official description of the vulnerability.
I'm all for giving people credit for their work. In my daily work, I advise, mentor, coach, and team-up with others whenever possible. During our daily scrum, when we report what has been completed, I make it a point to say "Al did this really cool thing." I do not mention "Al did this really cool thing exactly the way I told him to":) I hand out credit and congratulations, and deflect when they object with "but Ray you're the one who designed it", because part of my leadership style is to give out recognition rather than seek out recognition.
Having said that...
The summary says "the President signed...", and that is in fact the news. That Bob Jones, an intern in Boston, suggested something isn't news. When it becomes national policy by the President signing it, that's news.
Also, if the president chooses a bad leader him, choosing an art major with no relevant experience as Chief Security Officer, whose fault is it when the organization gets hacked big time? If a company president sets up a compensation structure that rewards opening accounts, and creates a corporate culture where being sneaky and underhanded is the norm, whose fault is it when low-level employees do sneaky, underhanded things to get new accounts open? Sure, the low-level employees are responsible for their own personal behavior, but the leader is responsible for what's going on throughout the organization, policies and widespread practices. I hold them responsible for bad or for good, when it comes to the broad policies.
Somebody suggested that policy, someone else probably suggested the opposite, or something totally different, and the leader chose and set the policy.
Does that mean the leader shouldn't point out where the idea came from? In a positive way, I think they should. I try to. And whatever policies Trump selects and puts into force, I'll hold him responsible for - credit or blame.
Agreed, the US has rather significant land, air, and sea based firepower. Against Russia or China there are two problems - it takes days or weeks to deliver that firepower unless we nuclear, and they have rather significant defenses. So there is a niche for prompt global strike, the ability to hit targets anywhere with significant weapons *quickly*, and in a way they can't readily defend against.
>. 'm quite certain they are aware of any orbital object larger than a softball, just like the USA. With this capability, and certainly the motivation, I'd think that they've got at least a general idea of everything that flies over their heads
Oh definitely. Heck you can see the general outline of ISS with binoculars. What you can't do easily is look at it with a telescope that's much more powerful, because the more you magnify things, the smaller your field of view, and LEO objects would pass your field of view in less than a second. I'm curious, then, how detailed their knowledge is of our satellites.
If the earth were a point mass with no atmosphere, then yes one would need cancel the orbital velocity in order to allow the object to simply fall.
The point mass approximation is important and useful because it's used for determining the orbit of orbiting bodies. It fails completely when you talk about de-orbit from LEO. IIS is 254 miles above the earth, which 8,000 miles across. Meaning from LEO earth is nothing like a far off point, it fills the entire downward side of your view, much like it does when you view the earth from 50 feet up. It's very much not a point mass. The illustrations in this xkcd make the point clear (the author is a former NASA physicist): https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
Having that out of the way, let's look at de-orbiting from LEO, which is orbit in the upper atmosphere (thermosphere). We know that in space, there is no air resistance, so if you fire a projectile it will keep going forever until it hits something. The range of a.22 gun, fired in space, is approximately infinite.
We also know that the lower the orbit, the faster it has to be, in order to move sideways fast enough to turn the downward fall into a arc around the mass. As you mentioned, to orbit at LEO, you have to go extremely fast. If you go a little too slow, you'll fall slightly, which will put you at an altitude which requires higher velocity for orbit. You'll then be even more deficient in orbital velocity for the lower orbit, which will cause you to fall faster, spiraling downward in a vicious cycle. In other words, getting to orbit is hard. If you fail to do the hard thing (orbit), you de-orbit. Meaning de-orbit is easy - just slow down a little bit and let gravity take make over.
Once you get to about 50-80 miles above the earth, you run into air resistance, which slows you pretty quickly. Remember the more your orbital speed is reduced, the faster you fall (technically, the more you fail to counteract the fall with sideways motion).
So from LEO at 254 miles, we can de-orbit in two different ways, or both at the same time. If we're used to thinking of the earth as a point mass, we can fire our projectile retrograde to slow it down a bit. That'll mean it's no longer at the correct orbital velocity, and will gradually spiral down. If we notice that earth's (denser) atmosphere is only 200 miles away, we can fire at it. US ships have guns that can fire *through air* sixty miles. Our pistol can fire a million miles through space. Traversing the 200 miles of space to get to air below isn't terribly difficult.
Upon further reflection, strike the part about "it would circle the earth approximately once". It would be considerably less than full orbit, but easily several thousand miles. Of course, the satellite carrying the rod need not be in geosynchronous orbit. As I recall, ISS orbits the earth every 90 minutes, and many satellites are in similar orbits.
I believe US satellites overfly China many times per day. Which is those may have a tungsten rod or two tucked in amongst their other equipment I don't know. Probably none, but they're going 18,000 miles per hour, so I can't look at them with my telescope. They move much too fast.
Not that I disagree with your conclusions (much), but...
> don't gain much in utility over land based weapons and take up a lot of energy for initial launch
Conveniently, the keep that energy, as potential energy, and that energy can stored virtually forever before being converted into militarily effective energy by simply letting it fall. A simple, inert metal rod would deliver the same energy as a small atomic bomb. Flying at double-digit Mach numbers, it would hit the target very quickly, leaving little reaction time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
> It's just far easier to launch a big rocket from the surface and let it go ballistic to the target.
As you may know, intercontinental ballistic missiles fly through space anyway. So you have the same "energy for launch" and all. The question is "might it be better to have it halfway there ahead of time"? It reduces the warning time the target has by at least 10-15 minutes - minutes that they could spend launching missiles back at you. I say "at least" because an ICBM launch and flight is probably quite a bit easier to reliably detect than releasing a rod is.
> As I recall dropping something from orbit only shortens the time to target if it's already above the target when needed.
Since it starts out going roughly orbital speed, it won't drop straight down - not even close. If fired straight down, at 10,000 km/h, the orbital vector would mean it would circle the earth approximately once on its way down (air resistance makes this calculation difficult). You can fire from any location in orbit and have it hit anywhere you want on the plane, by adjusting the speed or angle at which you fire the de-orbit thrust.
> A nation like Russia or China would not only consider a geo-stationary weapons platform over their heads as provocative they might just find a way to arrange an "accidental" collision with one of their satellites to kill it
If Russia or China knew that the geo-stationary communication satellites above the US also contain tungsten rods aimed at them, they'd be pretty pissed. They don't know that those rods are on the satellites. I don't know that those rods AREN'T on the satellites.
If you're too lazy to read the page you're linking to, at least read the URL itself that you copy/pasted. See that word right after ".org"? It says "nuclear-weapons". It doesn't say "military". Why? Because it doesn't ban military use of space. In fact, the treaty explicitly allows stationing military personnel in space. Anyway, here's a bit of what you would have found if you'd read the page before linking to it:
-- it does not prohibit missile-borne WMD from transiting space [ballistic missiles are space rockets] or weapons other than WMD being placed in space orbit and used to attack targets in space or on Earth.
There is no ban on air- ground, or conventional space-based anti-satellite or anti-missile weapons. --
This is totally going off on a tangent, but it's kind of an interesting story, I think.
Many years ago, the porn industry went through a period of doing pretty much what I described above. For example, John owed Dave, Dave owed Mike, Mike owed Ray, and Ray owed John, but nobody had any money. So they resolved all the debts with phone calls, without any actual money changing hands, after realizing that the money John owed would eventually end up back with him. There was a lot of that going on for a couple weeks.
A major payment processor suddenly shut off all payments to and from anyone they suspected might be even indirectly involved with adult web sites. This created a cash crunch even for companies who didn't use that processor, because their customers couldn't pay them. In turn, they couldn't pay their vendors. The whole ecosystem of the industry was screwed. Porn sites couldn't pay the content providers (photographers), who therefore couldn't pay the hosting companies, who then couldn't pay their consulting server admin and security guy, who in turn couldn't pay for the content he used on his side-business site, etc.
I started a spreadsheet of who owed who and started making phone calls. "John owes you money and you owe Mike, and Mike owes me. John is going to hook me up with something I need, so all those accounts will be cleared up, okay?"
Next call "I owe you, but you owe John. I've talked to John and he says you are clear with him if I'm clear with you, okay?"
It was an interesting time. Thinking back on it, I might have been able to take a 5% cut of each transaction:)
Suppose I owe PhantomFive $100. You owe me $100. He emails me asking "hey, where's the $100 you owe me?" I reply "I can't afford to pay you until rsilvergun pays me".
Then he sues you, and so do I.
He tells the court "I got shorted because rsilvergun didn't pay Ray. If rsilvergun had paid Ray, Ray would have paid me." At the time time, I'm suing you because you didn't pay me.
He would not prevail in his suit against you. First, you owe *me*, not him. You and I may have worked out a payment plan, or could have a lawsuit, or whatever that he does even know about. Secondly, his claim is based on the hypothetical "if rsilvergun paid Ray, Ray would have paid me". Maybe I would have, maybe not. Maybe I would have made a partial payment, maybe none at all.
That's the legal issue in this case. Apple charged PUBLISHERS 30% (vs 8%-18% other payment processors charge, and unknown marketing costs). Publishers could sue Apple for forcing them to pay that 30%. Here a third-party, some users, are saying "if Apple didn't charge publishers as much, publishers wouldn't charge me as much." Maybe so, maybe not. It's a hypothetical from a third party. Major publishers, such as Google and Steam could sue over the 30% they have to pay.
Intuitively, at a gut level, I'd like this particular case to go forward, but it's hard to formulate a rule that gives the result we want in this case without leading to ridiculous results. Suppose I don't pay my car payment and I tell the bank "I would have the money to pay my car note, if I hadn't spent so much on iPhone apps." Should the car company then sue Apple over my car loan? What if my bank owes somebody money? Should that other person sue me because the bank didn't pay them?
I suspect people call Uber a taxi service because - it's a taxi service. "Ride sharing" is BS, and that's quite obvious.
I too slightly surprised at how many people acknowledge that plain and simple fact rather than pretending to believe some BS, happily surprised.
Even if a political agenda were ALL that mattered, of one had no care for the truth, you don't get intelligent people to support you and your agenda by telling them ridiculous lies.
If you want to end "big taxi", you can more effectively do so with an honest argument: Some say unregulated taxis would cause big problems. Uber is unregulated taxis. Uber doesn't cause those problems. Therefore, they are mistaken - unregulated taxis, like Uber, don't cause major problems. Taxis should therefore be deregulated.
And exactly which of those 17 articles do YOU think prohibits SDI, ballistic missiles which fly through space, and our hundreds of currently orbiting military satellites?
You did at least glance at what your own link says this time, before saying more dumb shit, right?
> all those treaties prohibiting militarization of space
Which treaty is that, exactly? The 1957 treaty talks about putting NUCLEAR WEAPONS in space. The President has not announced any plan or intent to put nuclear weapons in space.
Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit? Or for that matter, ballistic missiles, which fly through space? There is no treaty prohibiting militarization of space.
You might wish to read the page you linked to, or at least its summary, at the top of the page. The President has not announced any plan or intent to put nuclear weapons in space.
> which forbids militarization of space?
It does no such thing. Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit?
Did you forget to read even the subject line before replying? Sending armed, trained people to an apparent hostage situation doesn't mean âshooting people who haven't committed any crimesâ. It means being prepared in case the perp (who says he has already murdered one person) has to be shot.
The proposed solution was to send *unarmed* people into the building to check it out.
> because of its profit production for various companies in the states of various congress people.
Absolutely. That was and is a significant problem.
> But it's time to kill it.
What if it could be completed for half as much money? Would it be a good idea to kill it if instead of $16 billion, it only cost $8 billion?
I ask because that's where we are now - halfway done. $8 billion has already been spent and it's gone. We can't get that back. It'll cost $8 to complete it.
It looks like anything you do in the kernel is a workaround rather than a fix. So I wouldn't expect it to be "fixed" in the kernel, since it's not really a kernel problem.
From what I can gather, until AMD does a firmware fix (or hardware?) the best option is to select "typical current idle" in bios.
Of course, if the rcu workaround is working for you, you might just leave it at that until AMD really fixes the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
My focus at the time was web sites, so I wasn't paying much attention to circumvention devices.
I owned a web hosting company and this was when there wasn't yet the content-producing industry that exists today, so some of our customers could well be using content with questionable licensing rights. In fact, for adult content, there were basically five provides - Dave Lace, Dave Thompson, another Dave whose last name I've forgotten, Gabe, and a Suze Randall. Two of those content producers were also our customers. So I owned a hosting company, and had customers who were both content producers and users of content. My interest was in a good process for all of us to handle copyright issues related to web site content.
I might find it later, if I don't have something else higher priority to do. I'd use Google's date filters for 1998 and early 1999, with my username and site: slashdot.com
It would probably be easier to find on some other forums, like GFY.com, if posts that old are still available there.
> I was correct. Of course, nobody asked me.
> It was obviously written by big copyright owners who were writing it for their own purposes, rather than being a general-purpose law
If it were "written by big copyright owners for their own purposes", you wouldn't be able to end it by simply saying "I disagree, I don't think I'm infringing", and have the content stay up.
We DID ask you for input, we DID ask you to participate. Specifically *I* asked right here on Slashdot.
I was involved in multiple drafts of the DMCA before it became law, discussing the draft with people involved in many different aspects of the internet. People had different concerns and things were changed in the drafts to improve it.
Three major categories of people had different concerns:
Content producers
Hosting companies and ISPs
Web sites using content
Previously, when a content producer saw their content was being unlawfully copied on a web site, they would contact the hosting company. The liability of the hosting company was questionable - probably AFTER having received notice, they would most likely be liable if they didn't take it down, but that was murky. Different hosting companies had different policies. Some shut the site down right away. Some ignored the notices, which meant content producers would contact their upstream providers, who would often put pressure on the hosting company. Different companies had different policies about protecting their customers from invalid complaints (fair use etc). Most would just shut it down - they didn't want to get involved in a legal fight. It was all very inconsistent and messy.
Here's the process we ended up with:
Content provider would notify the site or hosting company, identifying exactly what infringed copyright.
Hosting company would inform the site owner, who had three options:
A. Deny the infringement (counter-notice)
B. Take down the content
C. Ignore the notice
If the site owner / poster denies there is infringement, that's the end of it. The hosting company is not liable, because they've received a statement saying there is no infringement. For some reason we didn't anticipate, very few people choose this option. It's the best and easiest option if you have content that isn't infringing.
Once the site owner or the person who posted the content says it doesn't infringe, the DMCA notice process ends and the content producer has to sue in federal court in order to move forward.
If the site owner sees there is likely infringement and takes the content down, that resolves the complaint process also. (Though the producer *could* still sue in federal court).
If the site owner ignores the notice and doesn't say "nope, not infringing", the web host will take down the content. This is the worst option. We didn't expect it would be the most common. Much better for the web site to respond to the notice somehow - either by taking down infringing content if they agree, or by sending back a note saying it's not infringing (a counter notice).
That seemed like a good, fair process, to most people. It's not exactly what content producers would choose if they got to pick, and not exactly what people re-using content would pick, but it's a fair compromise, we thought.
Two things didn't work out the way we expected. First, very few people send back a counter-notice. I can't explain why this is. It's so easy to just send back an email saying "nope, I disagree. This isn't infringement because it's educational fair use. That essentially nullifies the original DMCA notice.
Secondly, perhaps BECAUSE almost nobody responds to a DMCA notice, some producers started sending out way too many notices, not being sufficiently careful that they are accurate. Nobody anticipated that at the time the law was written. If I had an opportunity to do it over again, I would have suggested adding penalities for recklessly sending noticed, but that possibility never came up in the discussion.
Initially, the law was welcomed by most people in all the different areas. It set up a consistent, fair process that almost everyone used. Most people running sites and posting content were reasonably happy with it - they didn't violate copyright anyway, at least not much (maybe some clip art), and if they received a notice they'd gladly swap out any infringing content. They were glad to know that in a dispute, the hosting company would back them up - as long as they notified the hosting company that there WAS a
That was an interesting post, thank you.
Certainly the long range cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk block IV with a range of 900 nautical miles, are a significant asset. That's what I always think of when people talk about military use of drones in an attack role - we've been using them heavily for a long, long time. The Tomahawk was developed in the 1970s. For attack, it's much better than a quadcopter in almost every conceivable way.
There are many bases around the world where the military keeps weapons and people. The Air Force can bring long range bombers on target carrying conventional weapons. The Navy has carriers and submarines with conventional weapons positioned all around the world.
There are up to seven US carriers at sea at any given time, each carrying FA-18s with a combat radius of 380 miles. Some are enroute, some are near hot spots. That gives the US the ability to strike *those* few places quickly. At a top speed of around 35 mph, they don't go somewhere else very fast. http://www.businessinsider.com... Included in the carrier battle groups are those submarines you mentioned. There are more submarines, mostly Los Angeles class. They stay submerged for about seven weeks at a time, listening to low frequency command transmissions at a rate of twelve characters per hour. The Los Angeles class has a top speed of 23mph and carries carries Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 800-1500 miles. This covers a lot more area than the carrier groups. Air Expeditionary Groups can deploy with 48 hours.
Brookhaven National Laboratory is on Earth. They achieved at least 4 trillion degrees Celsius.
What happens from this announcement, that Symantec cares about, is that their name is in the headlines. Free advertising.
Policy makers, the President and Congressional committees, already know from classified (an unclassified) intelligence that China is spying on the US all over the place. This latest marketing announcement by Symantec isn't going to make much difference to policy makers. Symantec doesn't care that much anyway - they don't have a major Chinese competitor they are trying to get rid of.
The free advertising is what Symantec cares about. If my company had uncovered this incident, we would absolutely put out a press release right away, in order to get our name in the press.
Heck, look at any of my CVEs, such as 2012-0206.
https://www.securityfocus.com/...
Do you think I thought about what the president was doing when I found and reported that? No, but I do very much like the first three words in the official description of the vulnerability.
I'm all for giving people credit for their work. In my daily work, I advise, mentor, coach, and team-up with others whenever possible. During our daily scrum, when we report what has been completed, I make it a point to say "Al did this really cool thing." I do not mention "Al did this really cool thing exactly the way I told him to" :) I hand out credit and congratulations, and deflect when they object with "but Ray you're the one who designed it", because part of my leadership style is to give out recognition rather than seek out recognition.
Having said that ...
The summary says "the President signed ...", and that is in fact the news. That Bob Jones, an intern in Boston, suggested something isn't news. When it becomes national policy by the President signing it, that's news.
Also, if the president chooses a bad leader him, choosing an art major with no relevant experience as Chief Security Officer, whose fault is it when the organization gets hacked big time? If a company president sets up a compensation structure that rewards opening accounts, and creates a corporate culture where being sneaky and underhanded is the norm, whose fault is it when low-level employees do sneaky, underhanded things to get new accounts open? Sure, the low-level employees are responsible for their own personal behavior, but the leader is responsible for what's going on throughout the organization, policies and widespread practices. I hold them responsible for bad or for good, when it comes to the broad policies.
Somebody suggested that policy, someone else probably suggested the opposite, or something totally different, and the leader chose and set the policy.
Does that mean the leader shouldn't point out where the idea came from? In a positive way, I think they should. I try to. And whatever policies Trump selects and puts into force, I'll hold him responsible for - credit or blame.
Agreed, the US has rather significant land, air, and sea based firepower. Against Russia or China there are two problems - it takes days or weeks to deliver that firepower unless we nuclear, and they have rather significant defenses. So there is a niche for prompt global strike, the ability to hit targets anywhere with significant weapons *quickly*, and in a way they can't readily defend against.
>. 'm quite certain they are aware of any orbital object larger than a softball, just like the USA. With this capability, and certainly the motivation, I'd think that they've got at least a general idea of everything that flies over their heads
Oh definitely. Heck you can see the general outline of ISS with binoculars. What you can't do easily is look at it with a telescope that's much more powerful, because the more you magnify things, the smaller your field of view, and LEO objects would pass your field of view in less than a second. I'm curious, then, how detailed their knowledge is of our satellites.
If the earth were a point mass with no atmosphere, then yes one would need cancel the orbital velocity in order to allow the object to simply fall.
The point mass approximation is important and useful because it's used for determining the orbit of orbiting bodies. It fails completely when you talk about de-orbit from LEO. IIS is 254 miles above the earth, which 8,000 miles across. Meaning from LEO earth is nothing like a far off point, it fills the entire downward side of your view, much like it does when you view the earth from 50 feet up. It's very much not a point mass. The illustrations in this xkcd make the point clear (the author is a former NASA physicist):
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
Having that out of the way, let's look at de-orbiting from LEO, which is orbit in the upper atmosphere (thermosphere). We know that in space, there is no air resistance, so if you fire a projectile it will keep going forever until it hits something. The range of a .22 gun, fired in space, is approximately infinite.
We also know that the lower the orbit, the faster it has to be, in order to move sideways fast enough to turn the downward fall into a arc around the mass. As you mentioned, to orbit at LEO, you have to go extremely fast. If you go a little too slow, you'll fall slightly, which will put you at an altitude which requires higher velocity for orbit. You'll then be even more deficient in orbital velocity for the lower orbit, which will cause you to fall faster, spiraling downward in a vicious cycle. In other words, getting to orbit is hard. If you fail to do the hard thing (orbit), you de-orbit. Meaning de-orbit is easy - just slow down a little bit and let gravity take make over.
Once you get to about 50-80 miles above the earth, you run into air resistance, which slows you pretty quickly. Remember the more your orbital speed is reduced, the faster you fall (technically, the more you fail to counteract the fall with sideways motion).
So from LEO at 254 miles, we can de-orbit in two different ways, or both at the same time. If we're used to thinking of the earth as a point mass, we can fire our projectile retrograde to slow it down a bit. That'll mean it's no longer at the correct orbital velocity, and will gradually spiral down. If we notice that earth's (denser) atmosphere is only 200 miles away, we can fire at it. US ships have guns that can fire *through air* sixty miles. Our pistol can fire a million miles through space. Traversing the 200 miles of space to get to air below isn't terribly difficult.
Upon further reflection, strike the part about "it would circle the earth approximately once". It would be considerably less than full orbit, but easily several thousand miles. Of course, the satellite carrying the rod need not be in geosynchronous orbit. As I recall, ISS orbits the earth every 90 minutes, and many satellites are in similar orbits.
I believe US satellites overfly China many times per day. Which is those may have a tungsten rod or two tucked in amongst their other equipment I don't know. Probably none, but they're going 18,000 miles per hour, so I can't look at them with my telescope. They move much too fast.
Not that I disagree with your conclusions (much), but ...
> don't gain much in utility over land based weapons and take up a lot of energy for initial launch
Conveniently, the keep that energy, as potential energy, and that energy can stored virtually forever before being converted into militarily effective energy by simply letting it fall. A simple, inert metal rod would deliver the same energy as a small atomic bomb. Flying at double-digit Mach numbers, it would hit the target very quickly, leaving little reaction time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
> It's just far easier to launch a big rocket from the surface and let it go ballistic to the target.
As you may know, intercontinental ballistic missiles fly through space anyway. So you have the same "energy for launch" and all. The question is "might it be better to have it halfway there ahead of time"? It reduces the warning time the target has by at least 10-15 minutes - minutes that they could spend launching missiles back at you. I say "at least" because an ICBM launch and flight is probably quite a bit easier to reliably detect than releasing a rod is.
> As I recall dropping something from orbit only shortens the time to target if it's already above the target when needed.
Since it starts out going roughly orbital speed, it won't drop straight down - not even close. If fired straight down, at 10,000 km/h, the orbital vector would mean it would circle the earth approximately once on its way down (air resistance makes this calculation difficult). You can fire from any location in orbit and have it hit anywhere you want on the plane, by adjusting the speed or angle at which you fire the de-orbit thrust.
> A nation like Russia or China would not only consider a geo-stationary weapons platform over their heads as provocative they might just find a way to arrange an "accidental" collision with one of their satellites to kill it
If Russia or China knew that the geo-stationary communication satellites above the US also contain tungsten rods aimed at them, they'd be pretty pissed. They don't know that those rods are on the satellites. I don't know that those rods AREN'T on the satellites.
If you're too lazy to read the page you're linking to, at least read the URL itself that you copy/pasted. See that word right after ".org"? It says "nuclear-weapons". It doesn't say "military". Why? Because it doesn't ban military use of space. In fact, the treaty explicitly allows stationing military personnel in space. Anyway, here's a bit of what you would have found if you'd read the page before linking to it:
--
it does not prohibit missile-borne WMD from transiting space [ballistic missiles are space rockets] or weapons other than WMD being placed in space orbit and used to attack targets in space or on Earth.
There is no ban on air- ground, or conventional space-based anti-satellite or anti-missile weapons.
--
This is totally going off on a tangent, but it's kind of an interesting story, I think.
Many years ago, the porn industry went through a period of doing pretty much what I described above. For example, John owed Dave, Dave owed Mike, Mike owed Ray, and Ray owed John, but nobody had any money. So they resolved all the debts with phone calls, without any actual money changing hands, after realizing that the money John owed would eventually end up back with him. There was a lot of that going on for a couple weeks.
A major payment processor suddenly shut off all payments to and from anyone they suspected might be even indirectly involved with adult web sites. This created a cash crunch even for companies who didn't use that processor, because their customers couldn't pay them. In turn, they couldn't pay their vendors. The whole ecosystem of the industry was screwed. Porn sites couldn't pay the content providers (photographers), who therefore couldn't pay the hosting companies, who then couldn't pay their consulting server admin and security guy, who in turn couldn't pay for the content he used on his side-business site, etc.
I started a spreadsheet of who owed who and started making phone calls. "John owes you money and you owe Mike, and Mike owes me. John is going to hook me up with something I need, so all those accounts will be cleared up, okay?"
Next call "I owe you, but you owe John. I've talked to John and he says you are clear with him if I'm clear with you, okay?"
It was an interesting time. Thinking back on it, I might have been able to take a 5% cut of each transaction :)
Suppose I owe PhantomFive $100.
You owe me $100.
He emails me asking "hey, where's the $100 you owe me?"
I reply "I can't afford to pay you until rsilvergun pays me".
Then he sues you, and so do I.
He tells the court "I got shorted because rsilvergun didn't pay Ray. If rsilvergun had paid Ray, Ray would have paid me." At the time time, I'm suing you because you didn't pay me.
He would not prevail in his suit against you. First, you owe *me*, not him. You and I may have worked out a payment plan, or could have a lawsuit, or whatever that he does even know about. Secondly, his claim is based on the hypothetical "if rsilvergun paid Ray, Ray would have paid me". Maybe I would have, maybe not. Maybe I would have made a partial payment, maybe none at all.
That's the legal issue in this case. Apple charged PUBLISHERS 30% (vs 8%-18% other payment processors charge, and unknown marketing costs). Publishers could sue Apple for forcing them to pay that 30%. Here a third-party, some users, are saying "if Apple didn't charge publishers as much, publishers wouldn't charge me as much." Maybe so, maybe not. It's a hypothetical from a third party. Major publishers, such as Google and Steam could sue over the 30% they have to pay.
Intuitively, at a gut level, I'd like this particular case to go forward, but it's hard to formulate a rule that gives the result we want in this case without leading to ridiculous results. Suppose I don't pay my car payment and I tell the bank "I would have the money to pay my car note, if I hadn't spent so much on iPhone apps." Should the car company then sue Apple over my car loan? What if my bank owes somebody money? Should that other person sue me because the bank didn't pay them?
I suspect people call Uber a taxi service because - it's a taxi service. "Ride sharing" is BS, and that's quite obvious.
I too slightly surprised at how many people acknowledge that plain and simple fact rather than pretending to believe some BS, happily surprised.
Even if a political agenda were ALL that mattered, of one had no care for the truth, you don't get intelligent people to support you and your agenda by telling them ridiculous lies.
If you want to end "big taxi", you can more effectively do so with an honest argument:
Some say unregulated taxis would cause big problems.
Uber is unregulated taxis.
Uber doesn't cause those problems.
Therefore, they are mistaken - unregulated taxis, like Uber, don't cause major problems.
Taxis should therefore be deregulated.
And exactly which of those 17 articles do YOU think prohibits SDI, ballistic missiles which fly through space, and our hundreds of currently orbiting military satellites?
You did at least glance at what your own link says this time, before saying more dumb shit, right?
> all those treaties prohibiting militarization of space
Which treaty is that, exactly? The 1957 treaty talks about putting NUCLEAR WEAPONS in space. The President has not announced any plan or intent to put nuclear weapons in space.
Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit? Or for that matter, ballistic missiles, which fly through space? There is no treaty prohibiting militarization of space.
You're not hearing about "the treaties prohibiting militarization of space" because there are none.
There is a 1957 treaty about putting NUCLEAR weapons in space.
Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit?
You might wish to read the page you linked to, or at least its summary, at the top of the page. The President has not announced any plan or intent to put nuclear weapons in space.
> which forbids militarization of space?
It does no such thing. Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit?
You may wish to read the link you posted.
The President did not announce a plan to put nuclear weapons in space.
Did you forget to read even the subject line before replying?
Sending armed, trained people to an apparent hostage situation doesn't mean âshooting people who haven't committed any crimesâ. It means being prepared in case the perp (who says he has already murdered one person) has to be shot.
The proposed solution was to send *unarmed* people into the building to check it out.
> because of its profit production for various companies in the states of various congress people.
Absolutely. That was and is a significant problem.
> But it's time to kill it.
What if it could be completed for half as much money? Would it be a good idea to kill it if instead of $16 billion, it only cost $8 billion?
I ask because that's where we are now - halfway done. $8 billion has already been spent and it's gone. We can't get that back. It'll cost $8 to complete it.
It looks like anything you do in the kernel is a workaround rather than a fix. So I wouldn't expect it to be "fixed" in the kernel, since it's not really a kernel problem.
From what I can gather, until AMD does a firmware fix (or hardware?) the best option is to select "typical current idle" in bios.
Of course, if the rcu workaround is working for you, you might just leave it at that until AMD really fixes the issue.