Are you claiming that there are no vehicular lightingstandardsin place, or that you can't instantly recognize the position and orientation of a car in the dark based on its lights alone?
Identifying cars based on their lights may be complicated, but it's by far the simplest method of identifying cars by CV at night.
This specific implementation only works on red cars, but we have some good ideas about how to generalize this.
If you can reliably see that an oncoming car is red through a webcam at night, you've already blinded the other driver! Instead of making generalized car-recognition algorithms, why not take advantage of the fact that the other cars will have their lights on, too? The location and color of the various car lights are fairly standardized.
What is the LED version of the vehicle? A replacement for a dead dino burner, but not a pure battery car that has to be recharged.
There are some serious advantages to energy-dense, easily handled hydrocarbon fuels, especially when long distance traveling is concerned (range and refuel time).
Until we come up with much better batteries, the Volt style "bring a generator with you" approach is certainly the most versatile. You sacrifice some range by carrying the engine instead of extra batteries, but the electric range is more than enough for most daily commutes.
In your analogy, though, I'd say that hybrids are the CFLs and that EVs are the LED bulbs. Early LED bulbs were pretty shitty, if you recall: outrageously expensive, weirdly colored, and not long-lived.
It's not the check for intoxication that concerns anyone, it's the checkpoints. Around here, the police need suspicion of a crime in order search a person. Nobody has a problem with stopping and testing people who appear to be driving drunk (except the drunk, I suppose).
Wow, I just looked into that some more and it's pretty horrifying. The ruling was more than it being "Just Too Important(TM)", it was that it is too important to the State. That line of reasoning allows for just about any unconstitutional law to be upheld. Even the dissenting decisions were more concerned with the effectiveness of the checkpoints and considered the violation of the Fourth Amendment that they represent an accepted and foregone conclusion.
The majority opinion from Rehnquist: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
Second, there is no reason that you can't have a backup battery bank AND be connected to the grid.
That's what I do. The extra hardware is really just a switched battery charger, but you could get better efficiency switching the entire AC output to grid instead of running everything through the battery and inverter.
The panels run the house during the day and charge the batteries for night, but during extended cloudy weather or snow everything will run off the grid without any action on my part.
Well, they have to find out that it actually happened to do that. There appears to be a good deal of "information laundering" going on so that individual agents may not even know that they're facilitating perjury. It's a deliberately constructed end run around our system of justice, which makes it even more nefarious than a few rogue agents.
Why does Apple get to decide what certs are trusted or untrusted? They should send out a security notice advising customers about the situation and then let individuals deal with it from there. Also, all certs should be shipped as "untrusted" so that the user can selectively enable what he wants to be trusted.
Have you looked at the root CA list in any of the major browsers/OSs? Why are we required to implicitly trust everysingleone of these entities to sign anything they want? If those lists illustrate how broken the CA system is, I don't know what will.
DNSSEC doesn't tie you to a registrar any more than registering a domain already did. DNSSEC also solves a good chunk of the MITM that can occur with the normal CA system. DNS is a vital part of the internet. The fact that it is so easily spoofed and altered is the root of many security problems.
The argument against DNSSEC is that there is still a root authority, at IANA, that can be corrupted. Which is solvable with DLV (DNSSEC Look-aside Validation) and alternative trust anchors. Even without that, stating the CA (or specific key) you use in DNS only makes the system stronger. At the very least, that's one more party to corrupt and non-targeted attacks would be broadcast across the internet.
Benzene doesn't hurt its use a fuel, and the total exposure is very very low when used as an antiseptic. The assayed benzene concentration in commercially available 200 proof ethanol is less than or equal to 1 ppm (basically the limit of detection of the test, so 1 ppm at worst). You'd be a fool to drink it all of the time, but drinking a few cL while hiking wouldn't be likely to hurt you, besides tasting like shit.
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but this is a problem than can be easily solved with DANE (or certificate pinning or CT...). If you make a positive assertion about the legitimacy of your self-signed certificate in DNS, you can have the authentication of a CA-signed certificate without the associated expense.
With DANE, you (the domain owner) are acting as the authority who vouches for your certificate instead of (or in addition to) one of the many CAs.
(I know that this is supposed to be an opportunistic approach, but reliance on the CAs is what is making proper HTTPS, even if just for forms, underutilized.)
Well, if you're a betting sort of person... anyone who has an arch-nemesis, or arch-nemeses, is probably not a good sort of person. (And obviously that applies to that person's arch-nemesis, too.)
The person I'm replying to never uses any units and is consistently mixing up mass, volume, and count, so I have no confidence in anything he is saying. His entire posts consist of childish name calling and passages pasted from the product's marketing claims. Anyway, the five to one ration seems to be referring to volume. The papers I had previously read referred to mixtures of 1:1 by weight. I'll find them at work tomorrow and provide the citations.
Overall, I'm not arguing that the uses for this aren't niche. I'm still hiking with my 200 proof. But to say that there are no uses at all shows a lack of imagination (even if novelty is the biggest use today). Screwing up the chemistry and mixing up mass, volume, and count is just annoying. His are fail-out-of-chem-101 level arguments.
But no no... you're right... powdered alcohol is way easier to transport. It is just five times larger and who knows how much fucking heavier. Go for it, sport. Knock yourself the fuck out.
If it's made by mixing 1:1 ethanol and maltodextrin by mass, which I've said repeatedly in my posts, then it's exactly twice as heavy as 200 proof ethanol. You're really having a hard time with all of this, aren't you?
I also gave some pretty decent examples of why you may prefer absorbed ethanol to liquid ethanol that don't involve weight or volume. But keep on blathering about the same thing over and over again, sport.
"Proof" is a measure of the volume of alcohol in a volume of water, as adjusted for the density of the mixture. Your measure of "filler to alcohol ratio", using whatever units you're pulling out of your ass to express that, has nothing to do with proof. Alcohol proof isn't even a relevant way to describe powdered alcohol.
There are many benefits to using a solid vs a liquid that have nothing to do with weight or volume. Solids are more easily handled than liquids, absorbed ethanol doesn't evaporate as quickly as liquid ethanol, absorbed ethanol is not as chemically reactive as liquid ethanol.
Nobody really cares if you're struggling to figure out why anyone would use this. You appear to struggle with a good deal more than that. Why don't you just finish with your little apoplectic fit so that the grown-ups can have an intelligent discussion here.
That's what I do, and in liquid form it's more conveniently available for use as emergency fuel or antiseptic. (I actually carry non-denatured 200 proof from my lab. It's cheap and burns well, but is illegal to drink.) On the other hand, high proof ethanol isn't particularly easy on plastic containers and seals (especially outside during rough handling or long-term storage), so there are some compelling reasons to carry it in an absorbed state.
2. It is so stupid, that if I wanted to enact prohibition, then something like making everyone use powdered alcohol would be a great way to do that. The stuff is useless. Utterly pointless. Why would I ban something that was incapable of doing anything?
I responded to you up above, but your ignorance on the subject tied to your complete confidence in yourself is too much for me. In every post you make some other ridiculous claim based on the numbers you initially pulled out of your ass.
Powdered alcohol is made by mixing pure ethanol with maltodextrin in a 1:1 ratio by weight. By weight alone, it's equivalent in alcohol content to a 63% ABV drink, and if ingested as a powder, your body will provide the water for solvation. The volume is large, because it's a fluffy powder, but the alcohol content by weight is significantly higher than a bottle of vodka.
A bottle of vodka is only ~30% alcohol by weight, so if you can obtain water from another source (pump or purifier) then it is lighter to carry the alcohol powdered (the maltodextrin is mixed with ethanol 1:1 by weight).
The waste in hiking with alcohol is that the water is tied up in vodka instead of being able to be added later. You'd be less likely to have an aneurism over this if you wouldn't just make up numbers and then operate as if they were true.
You may not have heard of Baotou, but the mines and factories here help to keep our modern lives ticking.
We're able to produce most of what we use, including rare earth minerals, without creating toxic sludge lakes. The only reason we send all of these industries to China is to because their lax environmental and labor laws allow cheaper production, and thus higher profit margins.
Our modern lives don't depend on utterly fucking up our environment, but ridiculous executive pay and concentration of wealth at the top benefit greatly from it. Studies (which I'm too lazy to look up, but I'm sure others can find easily) show that it doesn't cost that much more to make goods in the US and Europe, labor and environmental regulations and all. The outsourcing of manufacturing hasn't even significantly dropped retail prices much, though profit margins (and net profits) are at record highs across most industries.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you claiming that there are no vehicular lighting standards in place, or that you can't instantly recognize the position and orientation of a car in the dark based on its lights alone?
Identifying cars based on their lights may be complicated, but it's by far the simplest method of identifying cars by CV at night.
This specific implementation only works on red cars, but we have some good ideas about how to generalize this.
If you can reliably see that an oncoming car is red through a webcam at night, you've already blinded the other driver! Instead of making generalized car-recognition algorithms, why not take advantage of the fact that the other cars will have their lights on, too? The location and color of the various car lights are fairly standardized.
What is the LED version of the vehicle? A replacement for a dead dino burner, but not a pure battery car that has to be recharged.
There are some serious advantages to energy-dense, easily handled hydrocarbon fuels, especially when long distance traveling is concerned (range and refuel time).
Until we come up with much better batteries, the Volt style "bring a generator with you" approach is certainly the most versatile. You sacrifice some range by carrying the engine instead of extra batteries, but the electric range is more than enough for most daily commutes.
In your analogy, though, I'd say that hybrids are the CFLs and that EVs are the LED bulbs. Early LED bulbs were pretty shitty, if you recall: outrageously expensive, weirdly colored, and not long-lived.
It's not the check for intoxication that concerns anyone, it's the checkpoints. Around here, the police need suspicion of a crime in order search a person. Nobody has a problem with stopping and testing people who appear to be driving drunk (except the drunk, I suppose).
Wow, I just looked into that some more and it's pretty horrifying. The ruling was more than it being "Just Too Important(TM)", it was that it is too important to the State. That line of reasoning allows for just about any unconstitutional law to be upheld. Even the dissenting decisions were more concerned with the effectiveness of the checkpoints and considered the violation of the Fourth Amendment that they represent an accepted and foregone conclusion.
The majority opinion from Rehnquist: "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
It's a trap.
When Europe gets the blame for ATTEMPTING A LANDING, ALL THE REST OF THESE WORLDS ARE BELONG TO US ! ! !
Either that, or there's a loophole where it's ok for Europe to land on Europa.
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
Second, there is no reason that you can't have a backup battery bank AND be connected to the grid.
That's what I do. The extra hardware is really just a switched battery charger, but you could get better efficiency switching the entire AC output to grid instead of running everything through the battery and inverter.
The panels run the house during the day and charge the batteries for night, but during extended cloudy weather or snow everything will run off the grid without any action on my part.
Well, they have to find out that it actually happened to do that. There appears to be a good deal of "information laundering" going on so that individual agents may not even know that they're facilitating perjury. It's a deliberately constructed end run around our system of justice, which makes it even more nefarious than a few rogue agents.
Why does Apple get to decide what certs are trusted or untrusted? They should send out a security notice advising customers about the situation and then let individuals deal with it from there. Also, all certs should be shipped as "untrusted" so that the user can selectively enable what he wants to be trusted.
Have you looked at the root CA list in any of the major browsers/OSs? Why are we required to implicitly trust every single one of these entities to sign anything they want? If those lists illustrate how broken the CA system is, I don't know what will.
DNSSEC doesn't tie you to a registrar any more than registering a domain already did. DNSSEC also solves a good chunk of the MITM that can occur with the normal CA system. DNS is a vital part of the internet. The fact that it is so easily spoofed and altered is the root of many security problems.
The argument against DNSSEC is that there is still a root authority, at IANA, that can be corrupted. Which is solvable with DLV (DNSSEC Look-aside Validation) and alternative trust anchors. Even without that, stating the CA (or specific key) you use in DNS only makes the system stronger. At the very least, that's one more party to corrupt and non-targeted attacks would be broadcast across the internet.
Benzene doesn't hurt its use a fuel, and the total exposure is very very low when used as an antiseptic. The assayed benzene concentration in commercially available 200 proof ethanol is less than or equal to 1 ppm (basically the limit of detection of the test, so 1 ppm at worst). You'd be a fool to drink it all of the time, but drinking a few cL while hiking wouldn't be likely to hurt you, besides tasting like shit.
That person was recently fired
Let's at least hope that the manager responsible for having him sacked was also, in light of these events, sacked.
Every smoke detector has a 9V battery.
Until the first time it goes off while you're cooking.
Anyway, smoke detectors are storage space for dead 9V batteries.
They're easily found next to the charcoal and lighter fluid in every grocery store. How else do you light your 50000BTU_barbecue?
DANE depends on DNSSEC, so the response is authenticated.
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but this is a problem than can be easily solved with DANE (or certificate pinning or CT...). If you make a positive assertion about the legitimacy of your self-signed certificate in DNS, you can have the authentication of a CA-signed certificate without the associated expense.
With DANE, you (the domain owner) are acting as the authority who vouches for your certificate instead of (or in addition to) one of the many CAs.
(I know that this is supposed to be an opportunistic approach, but reliance on the CAs is what is making proper HTTPS, even if just for forms, underutilized.)
Well, if you're a betting sort of person... anyone who has an arch-nemesis, or arch-nemeses, is probably not a good sort of person. (And obviously that applies to that person's arch-nemesis, too.)
The person I'm replying to never uses any units and is consistently mixing up mass, volume, and count, so I have no confidence in anything he is saying. His entire posts consist of childish name calling and passages pasted from the product's marketing claims. Anyway, the five to one ration seems to be referring to volume. The papers I had previously read referred to mixtures of 1:1 by weight. I'll find them at work tomorrow and provide the citations.
Overall, I'm not arguing that the uses for this aren't niche. I'm still hiking with my 200 proof. But to say that there are no uses at all shows a lack of imagination (even if novelty is the biggest use today). Screwing up the chemistry and mixing up mass, volume, and count is just annoying. His are fail-out-of-chem-101 level arguments.
But no no... you're right... powdered alcohol is way easier to transport. It is just five times larger and who knows how much fucking heavier. Go for it, sport. Knock yourself the fuck out.
If it's made by mixing 1:1 ethanol and maltodextrin by mass, which I've said repeatedly in my posts, then it's exactly twice as heavy as 200 proof ethanol. You're really having a hard time with all of this, aren't you?
I also gave some pretty decent examples of why you may prefer absorbed ethanol to liquid ethanol that don't involve weight or volume. But keep on blathering about the same thing over and over again, sport.
"Proof" is a measure of the volume of alcohol in a volume of water, as adjusted for the density of the mixture. Your measure of "filler to alcohol ratio", using whatever units you're pulling out of your ass to express that, has nothing to do with proof. Alcohol proof isn't even a relevant way to describe powdered alcohol.
There are many benefits to using a solid vs a liquid that have nothing to do with weight or volume. Solids are more easily handled than liquids, absorbed ethanol doesn't evaporate as quickly as liquid ethanol, absorbed ethanol is not as chemically reactive as liquid ethanol.
Nobody really cares if you're struggling to figure out why anyone would use this. You appear to struggle with a good deal more than that. Why don't you just finish with your little apoplectic fit so that the grown-ups can have an intelligent discussion here.
That's what I do, and in liquid form it's more conveniently available for use as emergency fuel or antiseptic. (I actually carry non-denatured 200 proof from my lab. It's cheap and burns well, but is illegal to drink.) On the other hand, high proof ethanol isn't particularly easy on plastic containers and seals (especially outside during rough handling or long-term storage), so there are some compelling reasons to carry it in an absorbed state.
2. It is so stupid, that if I wanted to enact prohibition, then something like making everyone use powdered alcohol would be a great way to do that. The stuff is useless. Utterly pointless. Why would I ban something that was incapable of doing anything?
I responded to you up above, but your ignorance on the subject tied to your complete confidence in yourself is too much for me. In every post you make some other ridiculous claim based on the numbers you initially pulled out of your ass.
Powdered alcohol is made by mixing pure ethanol with maltodextrin in a 1:1 ratio by weight. By weight alone, it's equivalent in alcohol content to a 63% ABV drink, and if ingested as a powder, your body will provide the water for solvation. The volume is large, because it's a fluffy powder, but the alcohol content by weight is significantly higher than a bottle of vodka.
A bottle of vodka is only ~30% alcohol by weight, so if you can obtain water from another source (pump or purifier) then it is lighter to carry the alcohol powdered (the maltodextrin is mixed with ethanol 1:1 by weight).
The waste in hiking with alcohol is that the water is tied up in vodka instead of being able to be added later. You'd be less likely to have an aneurism over this if you wouldn't just make up numbers and then operate as if they were true.
You may not have heard of Baotou, but the mines and factories here help to keep our modern lives ticking.
We're able to produce most of what we use, including rare earth minerals, without creating toxic sludge lakes. The only reason we send all of these industries to China is to because their lax environmental and labor laws allow cheaper production, and thus higher profit margins.
Our modern lives don't depend on utterly fucking up our environment, but ridiculous executive pay and concentration of wealth at the top benefit greatly from it. Studies (which I'm too lazy to look up, but I'm sure others can find easily) show that it doesn't cost that much more to make goods in the US and Europe, labor and environmental regulations and all. The outsourcing of manufacturing hasn't even significantly dropped retail prices much, though profit margins (and net profits) are at record highs across most industries.