> it assumes that any civilization should develop technology in the way we did
No. It merely assumes that at least some are likely to. Not unreasonable since 100% of the civilizations we know of have done so.
> it is still extremely naive to expect the radio waves to reach here without > losing their precise nature, or getting garbled due to innumerable sources > of interference.
I think it likely that the SETI astronmers are capable of calculating the degree of attenuation and distortion of signals. In fact, they have, and have published their results. Where are your calculations published?
> Are you seriously counting on those old AM/FM radio transmissions making a > direct line through space-time to a planet 140 billion light years away?
As the universe is only about 14 billion years old, no.
> But when you think about it, detonating vast amounts of plutonium releases a > tremendous amount of energy all over the EM spectrum. It also gives off a > unique signature of the kind that doesn't, or could *never* happen naturally.
No, not really. The "bomb" is pretty feeble by cosmic standards.
> Businesses require software support & accountability for in-house > applications (perhaps the main reason why Linux hasn't been that well > adopted in the Enterprise up till now)
Support and accountability are readily available for Linux. The difference is that if your support betrays you, you are not SOL.
> That part is strange. Uncontrolled acceleration is a much greater risk to > life and limb than the red-lined/blown engine you might get if it were put > into neutral with the throttle wide open. Being "afraid to try neutral" > makes no sense.
> if his car was operating at wide open throttle his car had plenty of vacuum.
A gasoline engine has little or no vacuum at wide open throttle. It's the pistons pumping air out of the manifold while the throttle limits the rate at which it can flow in that creates the vacuum. If you'd ever driven a really old car you'd know this: the vacuum-operated windshield wipers quit when you floor the accelerator.
Elderly people are less likely to be strong enough to stomp a non-power-assisted brake hard enough to fight off a runaway engine, less likely to have fast enough reflexes to maintain control of a runaway car, and more likely to die in the resulting crash.
> Would Toyota be having these problems with an accelerator cable vs > electronic?
GM once had a very similar problem with a 70s car with a cable. An engine mount failure would allow the engine to rotate under acceleration in such a way as to yank the cable to full throttle and then jam it, causing the car to run away. The resulting collision would knock the cable free and as collisions often break engine mounts, the evidence disappeared.
Computerized systems are usually more reliable than mechanical ones, but they must be competently engineered.
>...doesn't the Prius have a mechanical (hydraulic) link to the brakes that > engages when the pedal is pushed down far enough?
Yes, it does. The problem is that the vehicles have power brakes which rely on vacuum. The engine generates no vacuum when the throttle is wide open. The brakes do work without the power assist but are then too wimpy to overcome the engine.
It could be done with a bit of electronics involving no computers (or better yet a mechanical linkage). Easy enough to shove in a valve forcing the engine to idle when the brake is floored regardless of what the computer is calling for.
> The police officer who helped stop the guy in California remarked on camera > that he definitely knew that the brakes were being applied/had been applied > enough to heat them up to the point that he could smell them.
Hard enough to drag and heat up but not hard enough to stop the car despite the driver exerting all his strength on them. Exactly my point.
Slashdot Mirror
> We could try to figure out your "secret path"...
First, though, you have to steal his wallet. Then you have to realize that there is a path.
> If IT departments really would care about password security, and insist on
> complex passwords AND not writing them down
How many security breaches do you know of that were due to the writing down of passwords?
Far more likely that it was never implemented.
> it assumes that any civilization should develop technology in the way we did
No. It merely assumes that at least some are likely to. Not unreasonable since 100% of the civilizations we know of have done so.
> it is still extremely naive to expect the radio waves to reach here without
> losing their precise nature, or getting garbled due to innumerable sources
> of interference.
I think it likely that the SETI astronmers are capable of calculating the degree of attenuation and distortion of signals. In fact, they have, and have published their results. Where are your calculations published?
> Are you seriously counting on those old AM/FM radio transmissions making a
> direct line through space-time to a planet 140 billion light years away?
As the universe is only about 14 billion years old, no.
> But when you think about it, detonating vast amounts of plutonium releases a
> tremendous amount of energy all over the EM spectrum. It also gives off a
> unique signature of the kind that doesn't, or could *never* happen naturally.
No, not really. The "bomb" is pretty feeble by cosmic standards.
> Of course if FTL is really impossible then the whole idea is pretty
> pointless, and remote civilizations will never contact each other.
You assume they are short lived and impatient.
> A significant number of the population doesn't even believe we landed on the
> moon.
So What? Their opinions are of little importance.
> At the most, a SETI search could have detected intelligent, broadcasting in
> cleartext life at a range of 50 light years.
How do you figure that?
> ...the first radio transmission on Earth was in 1866...
I think you mean 1886 (and that transmission by Hertz was very low power and wideband).
Depends entirely on how far away your planet is, of course. Read up on the inverse square law.
> Businesses require software support & accountability for in-house
> applications (perhaps the main reason why Linux hasn't been that well
> adopted in the Enterprise up till now)
Support and accountability are readily available for Linux. The difference is that if your support betrays you, you are not SOL.
> That part is strange. Uncontrolled acceleration is a much greater risk to
> life and limb than the red-lined/blown engine you might get if it were put
> into neutral with the throttle wide open. Being "afraid to try neutral"
> makes no sense.
Sure it does. "Blown engine" -> "explosion".
> if his car was operating at wide open throttle his car had plenty of vacuum.
A gasoline engine has little or no vacuum at wide open throttle. It's the pistons pumping air out of the manifold while the throttle limits the rate at which it can flow in that creates the vacuum. If you'd ever driven a really old car you'd know this: the vacuum-operated windshield wipers quit when you floor the accelerator.
Elderly people are less likely to be strong enough to stomp a non-power-assisted brake hard enough to fight off a runaway engine, less likely to have fast enough reflexes to maintain control of a runaway car, and more likely to die in the resulting crash.
There are substantial differences among the cars sold in different countries.
That said, there have been quite a few reports of unintended acceleration events with Toyotas in Japan. The Japanese government is investigating.
> Would Toyota be having these problems with an accelerator cable vs
> electronic?
GM once had a very similar problem with a 70s car with a cable. An engine mount failure would allow the engine to rotate under acceleration in such a way as to yank the cable to full throttle and then jam it, causing the car to run away. The resulting collision would knock the cable free and as collisions often break engine mounts, the evidence disappeared.
Computerized systems are usually more reliable than mechanical ones, but they must be competently engineered.
> ...doesn't the Prius have a mechanical (hydraulic) link to the brakes that
> engages when the pedal is pushed down far enough?
Yes, it does. The problem is that the vehicles have power brakes which rely on vacuum. The engine generates no vacuum when the throttle is wide open. The brakes do work without the power assist but are then too wimpy to overcome the engine.
It could be done with a bit of electronics involving no computers (or better yet a mechanical linkage). Easy enough to shove in a valve forcing the engine to idle when the brake is floored regardless of what the computer is calling for.
> Toyota ain't what it use to be.
And never was.
Emphasis added.
> The police officer who helped stop the guy in California remarked on camera
> that he definitely knew that the brakes were being applied/had been applied
> enough to heat them up to the point that he could smell them.
Hard enough to drag and heat up but not hard enough to stop the car despite the driver exerting all his strength on them. Exactly my point.
It's good enough to create logs on the basis of which the cabbies can be punished but not good enough to set the rate?
Besides, they only need an occasional fix. Dead-reckoning would work when no satellites are visible. The cab only has to know what county it is in.
> Oh, and by the way, get the hell off my lawn!
Sonny, when I was your age we didn't have lawns. Grass hadn't been invented yet.
> ...it shouldn't be able to affect anything outside of its sandbox.
Sure. Of course it shouldn't. And if it did, why that would be wrong.