Every airliner has two pilots. When landing or climbing the aircraft has a positive angle of pitch. Making it hard to even see the cockpit windows.
- you've punched a hole in the airframe. What happens next? Probably nothing.
The earliest something is likely to happen is when the next flight crew performs a "walk arround" check of the aircraft. It's not impossible that the aircraft could perform several flights before anyone notices that there even is a problem. A round hole in a pressurised part of the plane will simply leak, it won't tear and it will leak a lot less than a faulty door seal.
If you have a decades old Stinger, how do you maintain it?.
Even if you actually hit the aircraft it's not guarenteed to crash and burn. Passenger pilots are no less skilled than the crew of the freighter which was hit in Iraq in November 2003
9/11 may not happen again, but aircraft will be brought down by human borne IEDs.
Two have been, nearly 3 years after 9/11. Possibly because these were Russian built planes on internal flights this terrorist attack isn't well known in "the West". Of the planes involved the TU-134 is similar to the DC9/MD80/B717 and the TU-154 is similar to a B727.
This sounds like a (failed) bombing. If it went as planned, the moment the terrorist lit the bomb there'd be boom and mid-air disintegration instead of smoke and flame.
As was the case on the 24th of August 2004 with Volga-AviaExpress Flight 1303 and Siberia Airlines Flight 1047. Wonder if anyone in Amsterdam has asked anyone in Moscow for advice on keeping suicide bombers off planes?
Carry this theme forward to air travel - well, the hijackers would not get far, but the cabin walls would likely be so perforated as to kill everyone by explosive decompression!
Only in a movie! In the real world, which is not subject to "Hollywood physics", the pilots are going to notice the sound of gunfire long before it is possible to put enough fairly small circular holes in the fuselage to cause the cabin altitude to rise. Best to sit down and fasten your seatbelt, so only the hijackers will be cracking their heads on the ceiling. I can't find a maximum descent speed for an A330, but -1g (with the slats retracted) is possible.
In China where electrical scooter is so common that could be bought in USD $100 to USD $300 depends on the performance. Most model has detachable battery, so you could take it out and just bring the battery box indoor for plugin charging. A single charge should give you 20+ miles range (Sorry I don't own one so it's a bit guessing for this number).
If you are running a delivery service then you could presumably have more batteries than vehicles and make sure the driver puts in a fully charged battery when they load up with letters, parcels, pizzas, etc.
I don't exactly see the point of hybrid if full electrical scooter is just so mature. Do you really want to maintain two set of systems? Or unless you really need 200 miles driving range, I guess.
When you are using one "engine" the other is effectivly ballast. In an urban environment you'd want to avoid using the noisy and fume producing ICE (even when stopped) as much as possible.
However, if you come down with the sniffles, suck it up and don't run to get Tamiflu and antibiotics shoved up your ass just because.
Antibiotics are of no use in treating viral infections. The are more likely to be counter productive, since the most likely result of taking them is gastric upset and associated fluid loss.
Can a person be charged with drunk driving if they actually haven't had anything to drink?
You don't have to be guilty to be changed with anything. There are certainly cases of people being charged with drunk "driving" who were not actually driving...
I've got approximately zero sympathy for people who drive while under the influence of alcohol, whether or not they happen to be within the "legal limit".
There also appear to be no shortage of people incapable of driving safely without taking any drugs at all.
This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!
There's also the problem that if the accused has a common name such "naming and shaming" won't be such a good idea anyway. If they really wanted to be tough here then a conviction would always result in a driving ban and a need to take a driving test after the ban had expired.
That's not the law though is it and the police have proved many times they're not above faking the evidence. The police and the CPS or DA (or local equivalent) are biased, they have an incentive to get convictions,
In some cases it appears to have been more "important" to convict someone than to find the "right" person. On the police side the incentive may be more to arrest as many people as possible.
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck. any process beyond the machine testing is just paper work and your attempts to come up with futile excuses.
If it were that simple then the makers of such machines wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how they actually work. In many places, though possibly not here, a blood or urine test is required.
Here's the thing: DRM doesn't do what it's intended to do.
Or at least what it is claimed to do..
It doesn't matter whether the content providers "allow the unfettered copying of their content" or not. DRM doesn't affect piracy; it just creates barriers to the exercise of rights we actually have.
If anything it's likely to increase piracy. Since the "pirates" are less likely to supply content with artificial restrictions or even attached malware.
No, there is nothing "reasonable" about this idea. We're talking about bits of information, not a physical object. These bits of information don't exist in the same way as a book on a shelf. Asking for a way to make these bits scarce and uncopyable is a sign of ignorance or insanity.
Deliberatly attempting to make a new technology have the limitations of an older technology, especially when doing so requires a lot of extra work, seems like a good definition of "insanity".
I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this: All of your subscribers receive unique keys, like the keys that each Blu-ray player has. The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account & credit card details.
Because dishonest people would never use stolen credit cards... Assuming that the credit card companies didn't consider this to violate the terms and conditions of a merchant account.
When something is leaked to bittorrent, you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys.
Watermarking (which is as much a hack of steganography as DRM is of encryption) may well be of little use if several copies (with different "watermarks") are available.
What you say is true, but with enough hardware support for DRM, it may be well beyond the capabilities of most anyone to read it.
It only needs on person to break it though.
We're not there *yet*. But give it time.
Time is very much on the side of the likes of "DVD Jon". Those who want the DRM have the big problem of needing to get it into 10s of millions of machines the public is prepared to pay for.
Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant, curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing. Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly, along with a "talent" show to find the next Prince of Denmark for "Hamlet! The Musical" and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses.
These are probably entirely paid for through premium rate phone calls. Ironically 30 plus years ago "talent shows" had more "talent" or at least a greater variety of acts rather than the same people on week after week.
In order to play the movie, you need the key. In order to copy the movie, you need the key.
You may not need the key to copy though. A copy of the cypher text or some binary blob which is cyphertext, key and crypto machine mixed together may well be perfectly functional. It may even by cost effective to bribe someone to produce extra copies wherever "legitimate media" are being produced.
The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity. When you freely hand out both the ciphertext *and* the key to whoever asks, you can't have anything else. And if it's open source, you don't get even that.
It's possible to write ofsucated computer code. Thing is that doing so tends to be several times harder to write & debug. As well tending to being inefficent. In an open source environment such code is likely to be rewritten as soon as someone can work out what it actually does.
When Alice sends Bob a message she doesn't want Eve to read, she uses encryption. With DRM, Bob and Eve are the same person. DRM is a logical impossibility.
In most DRM systems it's more that "Bob" is Eve's slave. But Alice would like to think that Bob is her slave who will only tell Eve when and how Alice wants. Even if Bob started out as being Alice's slave the fact that Eve has now has Bob means that he could be following Eve's orders to lie to his former mistress without Alice having any possible way to know... Bob isn't even a slave they are just a machine.
GPG, PGP, many open source projects implementing encryption systems such as AES, DES, etc... have no qualms about their source being public. Because the keys do NOT need to be included in the source.
It's also part of encryption theory that the less needs to be kept secret the more secure the system.
It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.
Except that there isn't any way to do DRM other than by obscurity. The strength of the encryption is irrelevent since what you are doing is giving someone (who you do not trust with the plain text) the cypher text, a decryption machine and the relevent decryption key(s). About the only ways to make this actually workable are described in fiction by authors such as Neal Asher or J K Rowling.
The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society. As distribution has become quicker and quicker, the time needed for an artist to commercially exploit their work has decreased and therefore the time period for which copyright applies ought to be shorter, not longer, than in the past.
There are also more people together with a higher rate of literacy which means a bigger potential audience than in the 18th century. The relative costs may also be lower. Thus there are other reasons for a shorter copyright term.
In terms of reacting strongly to people that deny AGW, it is because the vast majority of the 'deniers' argue with ideology, not science.
Those who call those they disagree with "deniers" strongly implies that it is they who are motivated by ideology. There's also quite a bit of denial from the AGW camp.
not science. That is because there is very little science for them to argue with.
There's a lot wrong with the science. Most obviously ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes, something which just dosn't agree with the theory that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. In addition there are upward "corrections" applied to monitoring stations in urban environments. Rather than downward corrections due to the Urban Heat Island effect.
If someone kept trying to convince the world that all the "experts" who say the sky is blue are wrong, that it is actually red, would you waste your time on them?
It's more the case that the "experts" are claiming that the reason the sky is blue is somehow different from the reason that it was blue in the past. That's if they don't claim that the sky has only been blue recently and that any historical records of a blue sky are somehow incorrect...
And there are hundreds of other reasons to "go green".
"Green" is a political ideology. As with any other political ideology it has "fashion trends" the current one being "carbon this, carbon that".
"Going green" can be done without destroying the economy, and it might actually be a great way to restore a lot of America's lost manufacturing base.
Only if that will make the likes of Al Gore as rich as the "carbon trading" thing...
The key difference here, (i dont know if you've noticed), but if you WAIT to see with 100% certainty whether it is a problem or not, and it turns out to be a poblem, its not fixable at that point and the world essentially ends (or gets very screwed up).
If "it" isn't a problem then we may well have created a whole host of problems in our mis-guided attempts to "fix it". Even if "it" actually is a problem it's quite possible that many proposed "solutions" either arn't or capable to creating far worst "side effects".
The "what are we going to do" is everything - people said the same thing about anti-knock additives to petrol - that it would be too expensive and what about all those old cars that need 4 star?
Ironically the earliest cars used "unleaded". The use of Tetra Ethyl Lead was more down to politics.
Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents,
Though whenever "greener"It is involved it's important to look at things comprehensivly. If you were replace toxic solvent A with slightly less toxic solvent B, but you needed to use several times more of B then A that could actually result in more pollution.
more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures, or higher yield reactions etc),
which typically has a medium to long term financial incentive.
and CO2 is only a small part of that.
Except that it isn't. In many cases it's treated like it's the only thing which matters.
Moving towards different fuels for cars.
But such fuels must be able to be mixed with existing fuels in any ratio. So that they can be used with the vehicles and fuel distribution systems we have now, to be most effective. It's also important to avoid having "bio-fuel" production compete with existing agriculture.
carbon capture on industrial scales for power generation if we are serious about cutting emissions from coal plants that aren't going away soon.
The most obvious thing to do is to pipe the exhaust from such plants into a greenhouse:) Using a waste product to do something useful is generally a good idea.
What exactly are you proposing we do it cut levels of CO2? Stop driving? Cap and trade? Each of these have a cost associated with them.
Some of these costs may well be more damaging than the "problem" they are ment to address. Especially the "Cap and Trade". It's also interesting that the ongoing "War on Terror" is ignored, even though it's a major contribution to man made emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
The sniper's target is a man not a machine
Every airliner has two pilots. When landing or climbing the aircraft has a positive angle of pitch. Making it hard to even see the cockpit windows.
- you've punched a hole in the airframe. What happens next? Probably nothing.
The earliest something is likely to happen is when the next flight crew performs a "walk arround" check of the aircraft. It's not impossible that the aircraft could perform several flights before anyone notices that there even is a problem. A round hole in a pressurised part of the plane will simply leak, it won't tear and it will leak a lot less than a faulty door seal.
If you have a decades old Stinger, how do you maintain it?.
Even if you actually hit the aircraft it's not guarenteed to crash and burn. Passenger pilots are no less skilled than the crew of the freighter which was hit in Iraq in November 2003
9/11 may not happen again, but aircraft will be brought down by human borne IEDs.
Two have been, nearly 3 years after 9/11. Possibly because these were Russian built planes on internal flights this terrorist attack isn't well known in "the West". Of the planes involved the TU-134 is similar to the DC9/MD80/B717 and the TU-154 is similar to a B727.
This sounds like a (failed) bombing. If it went as planned, the moment the terrorist lit the bomb there'd be boom and mid-air disintegration instead of smoke and flame.
As was the case on the 24th of August 2004 with Volga-AviaExpress Flight 1303 and Siberia Airlines Flight 1047. Wonder if anyone in Amsterdam has asked anyone in Moscow for advice on keeping suicide bombers off planes?
Carry this theme forward to air travel - well, the hijackers would not get far, but the cabin walls would likely be so perforated as to kill everyone by explosive decompression!
Only in a movie! In the real world, which is not subject to "Hollywood physics", the pilots are going to notice the sound of gunfire long before it is possible to put enough fairly small circular holes in the fuselage to cause the cabin altitude to rise.
Best to sit down and fasten your seatbelt, so only the hijackers will be cracking their heads on the ceiling. I can't find a maximum descent speed for an A330, but -1g (with the slats retracted) is possible.
In China where electrical scooter is so common that could be bought in USD $100 to USD $300 depends on the performance.
Most model has detachable battery, so you could take it out and just bring the battery box indoor for plugin charging. A single charge should give you 20+ miles range (Sorry I don't own one so it's a bit guessing for this number).
If you are running a delivery service then you could presumably have more batteries than vehicles and make sure the driver puts in a fully charged battery when they load up with letters, parcels, pizzas, etc.
I don't exactly see the point of hybrid if full electrical scooter is just so mature. Do you really want to maintain two set of systems? Or unless you really need 200 miles driving range, I guess.
When you are using one "engine" the other is effectivly ballast. In an urban environment you'd want to avoid using the noisy and fume producing ICE (even when stopped) as much as possible.
However, if you come down with the sniffles, suck it up and don't run to get Tamiflu and antibiotics shoved up your ass just because.
Antibiotics are of no use in treating viral infections. The are more likely to be counter productive, since the most likely result of taking them is gastric upset and associated fluid loss.
Can a person be charged with drunk driving if they actually haven't had anything to drink?
You don't have to be guilty to be changed with anything. There are certainly cases of people being charged with drunk "driving" who were not actually driving...
I've got approximately zero sympathy for people who drive while under the influence of alcohol, whether or not they happen to be within the "legal limit".
There also appear to be no shortage of people incapable of driving safely without taking any drugs at all.
If they'd really want to embarrass drunk drivers, force them to drive around with a pink license plate (or any other flashy colors)
Forcing them to not drive is a far more sensible idea.
This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!
There's also the problem that if the accused has a common name such "naming and shaming" won't be such a good idea anyway.
If they really wanted to be tough here then a conviction would always result in a driving ban and a need to take a driving test after the ban had expired.
That's not the law though is it and the police have proved many times they're not above faking the evidence. The police and the CPS or DA (or local equivalent) are biased, they have an incentive to get convictions,
In some cases it appears to have been more "important" to convict someone than to find the "right" person. On the police side the incentive may be more to arrest as many people as possible.
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck. any process beyond the machine testing is just paper work and your attempts to come up with futile excuses.
If it were that simple then the makers of such machines wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how they actually work. In many places, though possibly not here, a blood or urine test is required.
Here's the thing: DRM doesn't do what it's intended to do.
Or at least what it is claimed to do..
It doesn't matter whether the content providers "allow the unfettered copying of their content" or not. DRM doesn't affect piracy; it just creates barriers to the exercise of rights we actually have.
If anything it's likely to increase piracy. Since the "pirates" are less likely to supply content with artificial restrictions or even attached malware.
No, there is nothing "reasonable" about this idea. We're talking about bits of information, not a physical object. These bits of information don't exist in the same way as a book on a shelf. Asking for a way to make these bits scarce and uncopyable is a sign of ignorance or insanity.
Deliberatly attempting to make a new technology have the limitations of an older technology, especially when doing so requires a lot of extra work, seems like a good definition of "insanity".
I think a workable open source DRM system could be like this: All of your subscribers receive unique keys, like the keys that each Blu-ray player has. The media they buy is also watermarked and linked to their account & credit card details.
Because dishonest people would never use stolen credit cards... Assuming that the credit card companies didn't consider this to violate the terms and conditions of a merchant account.
When something is leaked to bittorrent, you look up the watermark and can then ban that customer and revoke their keys.
Watermarking (which is as much a hack of steganography as DRM is of encryption) may well be of little use if several copies (with different "watermarks") are available.
What you say is true, but with enough hardware support for DRM, it may be well beyond the capabilities of most anyone to read it.
It only needs on person to break it though.
We're not there *yet*. But give it time.
Time is very much on the side of the likes of "DVD Jon". Those who want the DRM have the big problem of needing to get it into 10s of millions of machines the public is prepared to pay for.
Frankly,the BBC is becoming less and less relevant, curiously more or less at a rate which is linear to its embrace of processed manufactured tripe such as Strictly Come Dancing. Perhaps the BBC and ITV could merge and produce some sort of amalgamation of X Factor and Strictly, along with a "talent" show to find the next Prince of Denmark for "Hamlet! The Musical" and play it to a studio audience all wearing false red noses.
These are probably entirely paid for through premium rate phone calls. Ironically 30 plus years ago "talent shows" had more "talent" or at least a greater variety of acts rather than the same people on week after week.
In order to play the movie, you need the key. In order to copy the movie, you need the key.
You may not need the key to copy though. A copy of the cypher text or some binary blob which is cyphertext, key and crypto machine mixed together may well be perfectly functional. It may even by cost effective to bribe someone to produce extra copies wherever "legitimate media" are being produced.
The only thing DRM has is security by obscurity. When you freely hand out both the ciphertext *and* the key to whoever asks, you can't have anything else. And if it's open source, you don't get even that.
It's possible to write ofsucated computer code. Thing is that doing so tends to be several times harder to write & debug. As well tending to being inefficent. In an open source environment such code is likely to be rewritten as soon as someone can work out what it actually does.
When Alice sends Bob a message she doesn't want Eve to read, she uses encryption. With DRM, Bob and Eve are the same person. DRM is a logical impossibility.
In most DRM systems it's more that "Bob" is Eve's slave. But Alice would like to think that Bob is her slave who will only tell Eve when and how Alice wants. Even if Bob started out as being Alice's slave the fact that Eve has now has Bob means that he could be following Eve's orders to lie to his former mistress without Alice having any possible way to know...
Bob isn't even a slave they are just a machine.
GPG, PGP, many open source projects implementing encryption systems such as AES, DES, etc... have no qualms about their source being public. Because the keys do NOT need to be included in the source.
It's also part of encryption theory that the less needs to be kept secret the more secure the system.
It's no different from a closed source DRM solution, except that since it is OSS, it may have a stronger encryption system since it can't rely on security through obscurity.
Except that there isn't any way to do DRM other than by obscurity. The strength of the encryption is irrelevent since what you are doing is giving someone (who you do not trust with the plain text) the cypher text, a decryption machine and the relevent decryption key(s). About the only ways to make this actually workable are described in fiction by authors such as Neal Asher or J K Rowling.
The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society. As distribution has become quicker and quicker, the time needed for an artist to commercially exploit their work has decreased and therefore the time period for which copyright applies ought to be shorter, not longer, than in the past.
There are also more people together with a higher rate of literacy which means a bigger potential audience than in the 18th century. The relative costs may also be lower. Thus there are other reasons for a shorter copyright term.
In terms of reacting strongly to people that deny AGW, it is because the vast majority of the 'deniers' argue with ideology, not science.
Those who call those they disagree with "deniers" strongly implies that it is they who are motivated by ideology.
There's also quite a bit of denial from the AGW camp.
not science. That is because there is very little science for them to argue with.
There's a lot wrong with the science. Most obviously ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes, something which just dosn't agree with the theory that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature. In addition there are upward "corrections" applied to monitoring stations in urban environments. Rather than downward corrections due to the Urban Heat Island effect.
If someone kept trying to convince the world that all the "experts" who say the sky is blue are wrong, that it is actually red, would you waste your time on them?
It's more the case that the "experts" are claiming that the reason the sky is blue is somehow different from the reason that it was blue in the past. That's if they don't claim that the sky has only been blue recently and that any historical records of a blue sky are somehow incorrect...
And there are hundreds of other reasons to "go green".
"Green" is a political ideology. As with any other political ideology it has "fashion trends" the current one being "carbon this, carbon that".
"Going green" can be done without destroying the economy, and it might actually be a great way to restore a lot of America's lost manufacturing base.
Only if that will make the likes of Al Gore as rich as the "carbon trading" thing...
The key difference here, (i dont know if you've noticed), but if you WAIT to see with 100% certainty whether it is a problem or not, and it turns out to be a poblem, its not fixable at that point and the world essentially ends (or gets very screwed up).
If "it" isn't a problem then we may well have created a whole host of problems in our mis-guided attempts to "fix it". Even if "it" actually is a problem it's quite possible that many proposed "solutions" either arn't or capable to creating far worst "side effects".
The "what are we going to do" is everything - people said the same thing about anti-knock additives to petrol - that it would be too expensive and what about all those old cars that need 4 star?
:) Using a waste product to do something useful is generally a good idea.
Ironically the earliest cars used "unleaded". The use of Tetra Ethyl Lead was more down to politics.
Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents,
Though whenever "greener"It is involved it's important to look at things comprehensivly. If you were replace toxic solvent A with slightly less toxic solvent B, but you needed to use several times more of B then A that could actually result in more pollution.
more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures, or higher yield reactions etc),
which typically has a medium to long term financial incentive.
and CO2 is only a small part of that.
Except that it isn't. In many cases it's treated like it's the only thing which matters.
Moving towards different fuels for cars.
But such fuels must be able to be mixed with existing fuels in any ratio. So that they can be used with the vehicles and fuel distribution systems we have now, to be most effective. It's also important to avoid having "bio-fuel" production compete with existing agriculture.
carbon capture on industrial scales for power generation if we are serious about cutting emissions from coal plants that aren't going away soon.
The most obvious thing to do is to pipe the exhaust from such plants into a greenhouse
What exactly are you proposing we do it cut levels of CO2? Stop driving? Cap and trade? Each of these have a cost associated with them.
Some of these costs may well be more damaging than the "problem" they are ment to address. Especially the "Cap and Trade".
It's also interesting that the ongoing "War on Terror" is ignored, even though it's a major contribution to man made emissions.