I have a '00 TransAm WS/6 with a 6 speed. Stock it was 325hp.
I cruised the length of I-10 (Jacksonville, FL to Los Angeles, CA) a few times now.
On one trip, I normally held 80mph, and got 26mpg average across the whole trip.
On another trip, I normally held 70mph to 75mph, and got 25mpg.
On shorter trips, taking my time to accelerate up past 85, and then holding that in 6th gear works very well for better gas mileage. I can kill my economy by cruising at 55.:)
I've discovered over the years that cars have a speed that they "like" to cruise at. They'll run a little easier, and give better gas mileage. I'm guessing it's somewhere up the power curve where it has enough power to push along. That would be high enough to push without needing to give extra gas, and loe enough to keep the RPM's low. i.e., if you get down to 500rpm, you'd have to stand on the gas to get it to hold a speed. If you're at 5000rpm, it's revving to fast.:)
I put a vacuum gauge in mine too, as well as a digital air/fuel mixture gauge. It's very interesting, and ya, I do pay attention to it. If it runs up in the rich, or my vacuum drops, I'm accelerating too hard.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Adjust your driving accordingly.
Crown Victoria (2006/2007 models)
max speed 120/130mph (dependant on gearing)
0-60 8.7 sec
Highway - open, available exits
If you're traveling at 60mph, it would take them about 15 seconds to match your speed (leaving the side of the road). That puts 1/4 mile between you and the patrol car before speed is matched.
If you're traveling at 120mph, it would take them about 15 seconds to get to 60mph, at which you're already 1/2 mile away. It's an unknown period before they reach max speed, but most sedans of that size that I've driven, the top end is tough. Say another 30 seconds to pass 100. You're more like 1 mile away.
But, when you see the patrol accelerating hard to match your speed, do you slow down? You could. You're going to get a ticket.
Push it up to 150. Now there will be no closing speed. The gap will always get larger. Then take the exit of your choice when you're out of view, and taken an alternative route.
Of course, this is the day you're wishing you hadn't bought a fire engine red Ferrari, driving through Sticksville.
If you're driving a common-enough looking car, you're home free. If you're driving something half-way unique that couldn't be identified when you passed his stopped patrol car at 120mph (what'd that bumper sticker say?), there's nothing to really worry about. It won't necessarly be him looking for you. Ya, radio... faster than... blah blah.
People are generally law abiding. They hit the brakes when they see the cop, and pray to not get the ticket. It doesn't matter. He already got you on radar. You're still screwed when you stop. Well, assuming he catches up with you.
Don't be the idiot on cops though. I love the ones who get in a one-car wreck running from the cops. Those are people who shouldn't have been driving anywhere near as high as the speedlimit in the first place.:)
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's funny that you say that. I've been legally driving for 18 years (and a few before that, shhh). I've managed to be in 4 car accidents. I take speed limits to be a guideline of how fast I should be driving. Knowing the max speed is 65mph on a highway, but having effectively unlimited visibility ahead of me and empty roads, I tend to go faster. Lets say more than 50% of my driving has been over the speed limit.
The 4 accidents I've been in have all been low-speed accidents (under 40mph). 3 of which were driver or vehicle failure ahead of me. The only other one was at about 20mph, with a poorly designed, poorly lit road, that I was unfamiliar with.
I guess I'll have to spell out the first 3.
1) Bumper tag between 4 cars ahead of me. Unable to stop for the suddenly stopped vehicle ahead of me.
2) Truck on intersecting road ran stop sign, stopped IN the intersection. Very interesting demonstration of the transfer of kinetic energy. (I stopped, he went in the direction I was traveling)
3) Truck, no brake lights, locked up tires rear-ended stopped vehicle ahead of him. Unable to stop.
If I'm rolling along at say 100mph (for the sake of the previous poster), I'm on open road, with good visibility, and I'm generally away from all the other drivers. I stay in the gaps in traffic, just so no one can screw up around me. If I didn't gain speed, I'd be in with the other drivers, and I frequently see how well that goes.
But, speed should always be adjusted by the skill of the driver, the capability of the vehicle as loaded, and the road conditions. Even my car, which I know can handle over 150mph, if it's loaded with something (usually computers or whatever my project of the week is), I'll be the guy doing 50mph in the 55mph zone, because the car needs more room to decelerate or swerve, should the need arise.
I once drew up a plan, which I thought could be enacted nationally. Both vehicles and drivers should be tested not only for basic ability, but maximum ability. If you've shown proficiency in being able to safely handle a vehicle at over 100mph AND your vehicle is safely capable of handling those same speeds, the license plates should indicate the same.
If I'm licensed for the highest level, but I'm driving an old pickup, I would be limited to the capability of my vehicle.
Highway lanes would also be marked according to the vehicles that are allowed to use them. Take a 6 lane highway (one direction) for example.
Red license plate can only do up to 55mph.
Yellow license plate can do up to 75mph.
Green license plate can do up to 120mph.
Black license plate sets it's own safe maximum speed (driver judgement)
The right three lanes would be accessable to all vehicles, but only up to 55mph (lowest common speed)
The center lanes would be yellow, green, and black, max speed 75
The left two lanes would be green and black.
Experienced and competent drivers would already know to give way to the faster vehicle (hmmm, shouldn't that be a law now or something?)
Violations would be more severe for the higher rated drivers, or driving outside of your designated late. For example, if a red license car is doing 45mph down the far left lane (grandma on the freeway, just like we see every day), they'd have a huge penalty. Likewise, someone with a black license car doing 150 in a red lane would be severely punished (losing the high-speed privilege, or their license entirely for X period).
It'll never happen though. People will still freak out about good drivers in fast cars going fast down their fast lanes. Law/Code enforcement will lose out on their normal income. But, people would be able to ge
I once worked for someone who insisted that you get what you pay for. Stable solutions must be paid for. Anything else wouldn't work.
Our expensive monitoring system was nice and all, but I wrote my own just for fun on my own personal time. I wrote it to do exactly what we needed, and not too much else.
We needed specific services monitored. They must be monitored once per minute. We needed audible notification immediately upon a problem (festival to do tts). At 5 minutes, and every 30 minutes after that, pages were sent out.
I configured it to monitor our servers, and left it running on my desktop. Usually notifications coincided with the commercial package, at least within a few seconds of each other. Mine was usually first. A few seconds is ok, as long as we were notified.
One day, my software started "talking" about an error. I then received the page from my software. I checked the problem, and confirmed it existed. An essential service was not functioning correctly. I checked the commercial program, and it indicated that the service was running properly. Of course, I fixed the problem.
How long would we have waited for the problem to be resolved, if we depended on only the commercial software? Until an owner found it wasn't working? Until customers were complaining?
There's usually no harm in using multiple monitors. Sure, go with the COTS program, since you've already paid for it. Add a second (third, or fourth) monitoring solution, just in case.
We eventually dropped the commercial program, as we made improvements to my software. It positively identified problems, without sending false alerts.
So, would I trust an enterprise on open source software? sure. The significant difference between my software and something like Nagios is that there are a whole lot more eyes looking at the Nagios code to fix problems.
They're going to be very pissed if the people on the grid were supplying a serious percentage of the power on the grid. Sure, they'd be operating the lines for the rest of the paying customers, but it would probably mean that they were making almost nothing.
Your power bill isn't a reflection of the cost of fuel to provide you with the power consumed. It also includes factors like bringing the fuel to the plant, maintaining a fleet of service vehicles, repairs (lines, transformers, etc), all the way down to the janitor cleaning the customer service mens room.
Maintaince of the grid is expensive. That's absorbed into what they charge per KWH on your bill, which we're all more than happy to pay.
Something like this may change the face of modern electricity. It's possible that we could move off of the current power system, more towards community based power systems. The monopolies won't be happy, but they'll figure a way to make a buck.
They'll still charge you for the monthly 'connection fee', for having your house on the grid. A lot of people won't give that up, just in case they can't provide power for their own houses. (i.e., rainy season)
A couple people have already said it, but I'll say it again. DoS.
IRC kids can play very nicely sometimes. When they play rough, they don't hold back on anything. Think netsplit.
We had some IRC junkies at one place I worked. I was impressed with what the other kids would accomplish. They'd take advantage of any remote exploits they could, just to knock someone they didn't like (for whatever reason) off. Then there's the battles over control of a channel. Read up on "netsplit". It's been a while, but I have heard of tier 1 Internet providers having core routers exploited, simply to accomplish a netsplit. It is (was?) more common to have a lower level ISP get hit pretty hard, but....
Anyone who's worked with very many publically accessable machines will know all about the bots. Script kiddies will crawl the Internet looking for some box that they can put their own channel bots into, just for the sake of keeping them in channels, or to accomplish less friendly things.
IRC is a real neat idea, and at times, it's a very cool thing. Sometimes it's a freakin' war zone. Whoever put it into their TOS to disallow IRC specifically is either afraid of it, or has experience there, and knows it can be dangerous.
Sure, they can do everything in their power to avoid the problems with it, but it's a lot easier to forbid it in their terms of service. You don't *NEED* to allow IRC for a normal hosting service. And sure as heck, if you find a hosting service that lets you run IRC related stuff (bots, proxy, whatever), they'll be rejecting you on it, as soon as it becomes a problem for them.
They never needed a master key. A few well directed agents sent down to the MAE's could cripple the Internet. If they wanted it effectively down, shutting down the switches at the MAE's would handle that very quickly.
This is more of selective control. A subversive group has a web site, emails, or whatever, that domain could be redirected anywhere that's advantageous to the government.
For example, if they thought Slashdot.org was a subversive organization, the site could be directed to a gov't network first (or a friendly non-government network). Pass the traffic through to the real Slashdot, but log everything including passwords. Now you'd see everything going in and out, except for those with their own hosts files. Even SSL certs wouldn't help, since I'm sure it isn't hard for the gov't to get a valid cert signed as anyone they want. Even parts could be rewritten during the transfer.
I guess if we follow along with the idea of terrorism, if they were to say do this to gmail, they could filter emails from Osama Bin Landen, so it would simply look like you never received them, or insert their own messages to terrorists. That, of course, is assuming terrorists use email to convey their evil plans. I seem to remember it being in the news that they were embedding data into jpegs, and posting them to public message boards.. {sigh}
And when you have tens of thousands of slaves (err, employees) doing it, that sounds like a bunch of slackers. And ditch the 12 hour day idea, our employees will happily work by torch light!:)
> Everybody knows the pyramids were created by giant aliens.
You obviously haven't met them. I don't know how many times I've hit my head when I haven't ducked enough through their doorways. Freakin' superintelligent intergalactic species, you'd think they would be able to build a doorway more than 5' tall.
If you put 100 guys with guns vs 100,000 guys with lead pipes and broken bottles, I'd lay odds the 100 guys with guns, no matter how well trained, would win.
Even with air support.
Even with heavy armor.
How many guys does it take to flip a tank? About 300 could lift one, but 2 with bulldozers could make a valiant attempt.
Subversion of the government is still subversion. The government obviously won't tolerate it, because it threatens to take them out of control.
Our founding fathers understood this clearly. Hell, it's the reason the United States (or those pesky colonists) rebelled against England. We didn't like it, we stood up against them, we set up a new government for ourselves.
Unfortunately, our government has more power than the people. They have control over the media (at least to a degree), as well as control over all the larger weapons. It's still only a matter of time. If the government misbehaves enough, there aren't enough troops and law enforcement to quell a nation wide rebellion.
The thing you have to remember is that despite most people's talk, they're passive. There could be a group of hundreds or thousands who march into Washington demanding change with force. Most people will get out of the way. It's all someone else's battle. You can see it every day. Have you ever seen a car accident on the side of the road, with hundreds of cars whizzing by, and no one stopping? Did you stop? Probably not, it's someone else's problem.
In America, the people no longer have their rights, nor are they willing to stand up to correct it. So, sit back, relax, and enjoy whatever is brought upon you. You, with your bearing arms, are the minority, who will be killed in a violent encounter, because there won't be 100,000 others standing behind you, supporting you.
I was roughly quoted something on the order of $50,000 for a solar power system for my house. I know I could build it for something more like $15,000, so that company was already making $35,000 for labor and other misc expenses.
Now, where these people are "loaning" you the hardware, that means you're getting say $15,000 retail worth of equipment, which is probably more like $10,000 wholesale. Really, it's probably $7,500, but $10k is a easier number to work with.
Say an average home pays $150/mo for power with the system in place, they've made their money back in 67 months. Anything after that is pure profit. It's kinda like leasing a car. You're paying for the car, but in the end, you don't own it.
I strongly suspect somewhere in the fine print of the document, the life of the "loan" extends until you've used enough power, and paid their "reduced" rate, to cover the cost of the "loan". More than likely, you're wrapped up in a 80 month contract of at least $150/mo. It's a good long-term profit scheme, assuming they can get the customers in. Probably if you default on the loan, you are now responsible for their early termination fee, which I'm sure is roughly the cost of the equipment, plus a small profit.
Really, it's not much different than what cell phone providers, and satellite TV providers are doing. Consider someone like DirecTV. You get a "free" satellite system, which includes 4 receivers and a dish, installed. With this, you're signing a 2 year agreement. You're really getting a few hundred bucks worth of stuff, and they get you in a service contract for a couple years. More than likely, you'll keep using the equipment beyond the end of the original contract, so they'll continue to make money for a long time.
Personally, I'd rather own the solar equipment, but hey, if they want to give it to me, cool.:) I haven't looked into them carefully, but maybe I should.
Re:The most likely scenario
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, you're on the right track for what we really need to be doing.
Look at any technological advances. The first generation (1st model) is rough and inefficient. Each subsequent model gets better and faster.
vs... well, we all read Slashdot. Multicore, multighz, multiprocessor. Anything we may be reading Slashdot with, including our cell phones, will be faster than anything even 58 years ago.
How about something related to the topic. Aircraft.
The Hughes H-1 7 hours, 28 minutes, at 332 mph. Oohh.
versus
Well, book a ticket on the airline of your choice. You'll be exceeding 500mph, at over 40,000 feet.
The running theme here is that they were all built. They weren't the final finished product. They were earlier attempts, which were built on in the future.
If we sit back and theorize about "the Ark", then it'll never get built. If we build the first one, regardless if it will take 70 or 150 years to reach it's destination, at least it was built.
In 10 years, improvements or a better craft can be sent to take them farther on their journey.
In 30 years, an even better one can be sent.
In 60 years, commuter service will already be established to their final destination, with round trips in 10 days.
On the 70th year, that 10 day trip will take 1 day (mostly waiting in line, and filling out paperwork, I'm sure). At the destination, they can celebrate the arrival of the original craft, as it would signify what 70 years of advancements have brought.
We are really slacking at our advancements. We, as a society, are more interested in personal wealth and taking it from others, than advancement of humanity. No? really? But you have your job, so you can get a better car, a nicer house, a hotter chick, better vacations, better benefits, and of course, you're looking for the better job because your job just isn't enough. You'll accept the fact that your country is at war with someone else over their natural resources, because you aren't getting shot at every day. Blah, blah, blah......
We're never going to get off this rock, because humanity will NEVER get it's act together. Even if we play nice (ISS), we'll make it so expensive, and keep it tied up in red tape so long, that it will be an impractical exercise in futility. We will live here, and we will die here. In who knows how many years, another race will evolve and find our ruins, and just wonder who we were.
In the last 30-some years, the only better spacecraft have been kept under wraps by "national security", or cut because of costs (or so we're told). (see Blackstar). But hey, they did finally put color displays in the space shuttle.:)
We have much better things to spend our money on, dammit. The war in Iraq has cost over $400,000,000,000 (yes, I got the zero's right). The entire cost of the shuttle program (STS) has been $145 billion, but don't forget that cost includes several huge complexes, staff (besides the astronauts), a couple Boeing 747's specially rigged to carry the shuttle around, a BIG tractor to drag it around KSC, etc, etc, etc.. You get the idea. Lots of overhead. Even still, we could have done the space program 4 times over, each generation being better than the last, for what the Iraq war has cost
You're so right. Well, actually the first reply is right, they won't even contact you.
I'm having that problem now. Not that I'm over educated, but I'm over experienced. I guess the years that I've been doing my work overshadows most other people.
Unfortunately, I'm to the point that I *NEED* a job. I don't care if it's a lower job, under someone who doesn't know half of what I know. Eventually they'll move on or be fired, and I can move up to a position I deserve.:) For now, as long as it puts food on the table, it's all I need. My ego can rest quietly for a few years before I feed it again.
Nonviolence has it's place. It's usually where negotiations bring a reasonable conclusion for both parties.
But, there's a reason there are loaded handguns in my house. I may choose to use the nonviolent solutions, but should the day come where the other party isn't playing so nice, I have the option.
I forgot to mention your irony. Well, not exactly irony, but you've spelled it out well. The terrorists used one action to set in motion their real goal. The US has been destabilized for almost 6 years. People trust their government less, and a couple kids putting light-brights around town can cripple one of America's largest cities due to the fear. Oh my gosh Martha, what shall we do? There's a light bright! It must be the bad guys finally back to get us.
I guess I see the problem though. There is a strong Christian following in our administration. This is a running theme in Christianity. Something bad happened 2,000 years ago, and (theoretically) we know he's coming back for more. I'm not all that into christian mythology, but I think it's Revelations, or something of that sort? I guess if we follow in the current trend, we'll be playing this game for a long, long time.
You mention the damage WWII caused through Europe, and to those of foreign descent in the US. There are wrongs that go back a lot farther. I usually refer to "Thanksgiving" as "the celebration of the white man's conquest of the Indian lands". But hey, whatever. In the end, they got casino's and radioactive desert. We got... ummm... everything else. Or hey, what about the lands previously known as "Mexico". Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California,... ,... . Or the sovereign nation of Hawaii? Or a little more recently and closer to home, how about the economic destruction of Cuba?
I think it's cool that he is taking responsibility instead of cleaning house. He can afford to go without a salary for a good while, and the rest of his accomplishments as CEO will probably earn him a nice position once the smoke clears.
I couldn't agree more. However, I take serious issue witih the first part of your comment...
But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.
This kind of attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country right now. Living in fear of LED signs is exactly what the terrorists want. They're called terrorists. They intend to terrorize us. If we can't walk down the street without freaking out when we see some blinking lights, they have achieved their objective....
Just because we're in a "Post 9/11 World" doesn't mean that we have to freak out and assume that everything out of the ordinary is a terrorist plot. Keep your wits about you, think critically, and respond accordingly. People running around freaking out is only going to make us less safe. Thank you for saying this.. I've told plenty of people exactly the same thing, but it seems no one listens.
The government has been playing the game right out of the Cold War Play Book. An enemy attacks us, they obviously have a goal to conquer or destroy.
Unfortunately, terrorists aren't playing by the same set of rules. Their goal is to destabilize through fear. They launched a single attack almost 6 years ago, and the American response is "Oh my gosh, it's another attack!" We are terrified. We're scared of each other, of the government, and of some vague group on the other side of the world, who don't have the means to stage a traditional war, or even a single battle.... and I'm sure I'll get some people replying "BUT WE ARE AT WAR! THEY SHOOT AT US ALL THE TIME!" Sorry guys, those aren't the "terrorists". Those are the citizens of two foreign countries that the US Government decided to conqueror, and slaughter a fair percentage of their population (in that order), in the name of stopping a loose knit group of individuals around the world. If another country did that to the US, I'd bet every American able to hold a gun would be shooting back too. Well, maybe not, there's a lot of passive idiots who will take whatever abuse they're given, say "thank you", and ask for more.
But hey, we're defending ourselves from terrorism, even if it means scaring all of our civilians into believing anything may be the next attack, and reinforcing the idea that the next attack is coming, even though there is no need for a next attack, because the first one is STILL doing it's job.
That's really neat around Los Angeles, especially in the hills. Someone had a PWS only a few miles from my house, so it gave me great results. The closest "official" weather station was 10 miles to my west, and 1500 feet below me. Temperature, wind, and even humidity were always wrong from the "offical" site.
Eventually, I plan on putting up a PWS. Who knows when though.:)
You'd have to google around for the page, but I had seen a site, where a guy had taken a naval weather radar unit, that he had picked up surplus, mounted the antenna on his roof, and attached the rest to his computer.
But, you can grab weather radar images from a whole slew of sites, and use only what's specific to you. While your instrumentation can see YOUR location, and your own radar could see 15 miles or so, using other services is very useful.
Actually, checking arrival and departures does help estimate if your luggage will arrive with you.:)
If you get off flight 1 with 5 minutes to get to flight 2, your bags may not be unloaded from flight 1 until flight 2 is already on the runway.
Been there, done that, got my luggage the next day.
But, I agree, he's looking in the wrong place. I can imagine it would be a bit tricky to calculate if rain estimations are right. If they gave a 10% chance of rain, that still leaves the possibility for no rain. How do you evaluate that for accuracy?
My cell phone has a little applet on it, that gives the weather report with 7 day forecasts, current conditions, etc, etc. The current temp is usually close to right, verified with a good ol' mercury thermometer hanging on the wall. They only show 4 bars indicating the chance of rain though. I presume if the first bar is lit, that's 0% to 25%. To get a real number, they also provide the national weather service text.
I grew up in Florida, and my dad watched the weather every day, so I grew up learning to read weather maps. I find it more useful to take the weather report, and then decide if it's right for my location based on the maps, just like the forecasters do. For example, it may not rain at location 1, but it'll be pouring rain at location 2, only 50 miles away, because that's the edge of a large cloud mass. Broadcast weather reports can't take into account exactly where you are. They cover a broad area. Here in Florida, the whole state may be getting dumped on, or you may find it raining in your front yard, and sunny in the back. While I'd never attempt to guess at which part of the yard will be rained on, I can make an educated guess based on the available facts, rather than taking a "10% chance of rain" by a guy in a building 30 miles away, who's reading a report from the NWS, and simplifying it for the masses.
I was kind of wondering about that. I know the maps are frequently wrong. I'm in a suburb of a major US city. Even here, Google Maps showed us on the wrong side of the road, and 2 houses away. Now, we're on the right side of the road, but still not the right house.:)
I know there are plenty of places in rural America, not terribly far outside of the cities even, where unexpected vehicles may be met with guns drawn.
I've also known plenty of people who live in houses that aren't visible from the road. I wonder how they'll handle that. They'd have to go through a closed gate, and up a private driveway, just to be able to see the house.
Slashdot Mirror
2000 TransAm, not a '78 TransAm in 3 shades of rust.
I have a '00 TransAm WS/6 with a 6 speed. Stock it was 325hp.
I cruised the length of I-10 (Jacksonville, FL to Los Angeles, CA) a few times now.
On one trip, I normally held 80mph, and got 26mpg average across the whole trip.
On another trip, I normally held 70mph to 75mph, and got 25mpg.
On shorter trips, taking my time to accelerate up past 85, and then holding that in 6th gear works very well for better gas mileage. I can kill my economy by cruising at 55.
I've discovered over the years that cars have a speed that they "like" to cruise at. They'll run a little easier, and give better gas mileage. I'm guessing it's somewhere up the power curve where it has enough power to push along. That would be high enough to push without needing to give extra gas, and loe enough to keep the RPM's low. i.e., if you get down to 500rpm, you'd have to stand on the gas to get it to hold a speed. If you're at 5000rpm, it's revving to fast.
I put a vacuum gauge in mine too, as well as a digital air/fuel mixture gauge. It's very interesting, and ya, I do pay attention to it. If it runs up in the rich, or my vacuum drops, I'm accelerating too hard.
But, what happens if there's a fire?
Adjust your driving accordingly.
Crown Victoria (2006/2007 models)
max speed 120/130mph (dependant on gearing)
0-60 8.7 sec
Highway - open, available exits
If you're traveling at 60mph, it would take them about 15 seconds to match your speed (leaving the side of the road). That puts 1/4 mile between you and the patrol car before speed is matched.
If you're traveling at 120mph, it would take them about 15 seconds to get to 60mph, at which you're already 1/2 mile away. It's an unknown period before they reach max speed, but most sedans of that size that I've driven, the top end is tough. Say another 30 seconds to pass 100. You're more like 1 mile away.
But, when you see the patrol accelerating hard to match your speed, do you slow down? You could. You're going to get a ticket.
Push it up to 150. Now there will be no closing speed. The gap will always get larger. Then take the exit of your choice when you're out of view, and taken an alternative route.
Of course, this is the day you're wishing you hadn't bought a fire engine red Ferrari, driving through Sticksville.
If you're driving a common-enough looking car, you're home free. If you're driving something half-way unique that couldn't be identified when you passed his stopped patrol car at 120mph (what'd that bumper sticker say?), there's nothing to really worry about. It won't necessarly be him looking for you. Ya, radio
People are generally law abiding. They hit the brakes when they see the cop, and pray to not get the ticket. It doesn't matter. He already got you on radar. You're still screwed when you stop. Well, assuming he catches up with you.
Don't be the idiot on cops though. I love the ones who get in a one-car wreck running from the cops. Those are people who shouldn't have been driving anywhere near as high as the speedlimit in the first place.
It's funny that you say that. I've been legally driving for 18 years (and a few before that, shhh). I've managed to be in 4 car accidents. I take speed limits to be a guideline of how fast I should be driving. Knowing the max speed is 65mph on a highway, but having effectively unlimited visibility ahead of me and empty roads, I tend to go faster. Lets say more than 50% of my driving has been over the speed limit.
The 4 accidents I've been in have all been low-speed accidents (under 40mph). 3 of which were driver or vehicle failure ahead of me. The only other one was at about 20mph, with a poorly designed, poorly lit road, that I was unfamiliar with.
I guess I'll have to spell out the first 3.
1) Bumper tag between 4 cars ahead of me. Unable to stop for the suddenly stopped vehicle ahead of me.
2) Truck on intersecting road ran stop sign, stopped IN the intersection. Very interesting demonstration of the transfer of kinetic energy. (I stopped, he went in the direction I was traveling)
3) Truck, no brake lights, locked up tires rear-ended stopped vehicle ahead of him. Unable to stop.
If I'm rolling along at say 100mph (for the sake of the previous poster), I'm on open road, with good visibility, and I'm generally away from all the other drivers. I stay in the gaps in traffic, just so no one can screw up around me. If I didn't gain speed, I'd be in with the other drivers, and I frequently see how well that goes.
But, speed should always be adjusted by the skill of the driver, the capability of the vehicle as loaded, and the road conditions. Even my car, which I know can handle over 150mph, if it's loaded with something (usually computers or whatever my project of the week is), I'll be the guy doing 50mph in the 55mph zone, because the car needs more room to decelerate or swerve, should the need arise.
I once drew up a plan, which I thought could be enacted nationally. Both vehicles and drivers should be tested not only for basic ability, but maximum ability. If you've shown proficiency in being able to safely handle a vehicle at over 100mph AND your vehicle is safely capable of handling those same speeds, the license plates should indicate the same.
If I'm licensed for the highest level, but I'm driving an old pickup, I would be limited to the capability of my vehicle.
Highway lanes would also be marked according to the vehicles that are allowed to use them. Take a 6 lane highway (one direction) for example.
Red license plate can only do up to 55mph.
Yellow license plate can do up to 75mph.
Green license plate can do up to 120mph.
Black license plate sets it's own safe maximum speed (driver judgement)
The right three lanes would be accessable to all vehicles, but only up to 55mph (lowest common speed)
The center lanes would be yellow, green, and black, max speed 75
The left two lanes would be green and black.
Experienced and competent drivers would already know to give way to the faster vehicle (hmmm, shouldn't that be a law now or something?)
Violations would be more severe for the higher rated drivers, or driving outside of your designated late. For example, if a red license car is doing 45mph down the far left lane (grandma on the freeway, just like we see every day), they'd have a huge penalty. Likewise, someone with a black license car doing 150 in a red lane would be severely punished (losing the high-speed privilege, or their license entirely for X period).
It'll never happen though. People will still freak out about good drivers in fast cars going fast down their fast lanes. Law/Code enforcement will lose out on their normal income. But, people would be able to ge
I once worked for someone who insisted that you get what you pay for. Stable solutions must be paid for. Anything else wouldn't work.
Our expensive monitoring system was nice and all, but I wrote my own just for fun on my own personal time. I wrote it to do exactly what we needed, and not too much else.
We needed specific services monitored. They must be monitored once per minute. We needed audible notification immediately upon a problem (festival to do tts). At 5 minutes, and every 30 minutes after that, pages were sent out.
I configured it to monitor our servers, and left it running on my desktop. Usually notifications coincided with the commercial package, at least within a few seconds of each other. Mine was usually first. A few seconds is ok, as long as we were notified.
One day, my software started "talking" about an error. I then received the page from my software. I checked the problem, and confirmed it existed. An essential service was not functioning correctly. I checked the commercial program, and it indicated that the service was running properly. Of course, I fixed the problem.
How long would we have waited for the problem to be resolved, if we depended on only the commercial software? Until an owner found it wasn't working? Until customers were complaining?
There's usually no harm in using multiple monitors. Sure, go with the COTS program, since you've already paid for it. Add a second (third, or fourth) monitoring solution, just in case.
We eventually dropped the commercial program, as we made improvements to my software. It positively identified problems, without sending false alerts.
So, would I trust an enterprise on open source software? sure. The significant difference between my software and something like Nagios is that there are a whole lot more eyes looking at the Nagios code to fix problems.
The one that always annoyed me was Promise. That is, when I was still using their hardware.
http://promise.com/ goes to a blank index page.
http://www.promise.com/ goes to their real content page.
You're actually very correct on this.
They're going to be very pissed if the people on the grid were supplying a serious percentage of the power on the grid. Sure, they'd be operating the lines for the rest of the paying customers, but it would probably mean that they were making almost nothing.
Your power bill isn't a reflection of the cost of fuel to provide you with the power consumed. It also includes factors like bringing the fuel to the plant, maintaining a fleet of service vehicles, repairs (lines, transformers, etc), all the way down to the janitor cleaning the customer service mens room.
Maintaince of the grid is expensive. That's absorbed into what they charge per KWH on your bill, which we're all more than happy to pay.
Something like this may change the face of modern electricity. It's possible that we could move off of the current power system, more towards community based power systems. The monopolies won't be happy, but they'll figure a way to make a buck.
They'll still charge you for the monthly 'connection fee', for having your house on the grid. A lot of people won't give that up, just in case they can't provide power for their own houses. (i.e., rainy season)
A couple people have already said it, but I'll say it again. DoS.
IRC kids can play very nicely sometimes. When they play rough, they don't hold back on anything. Think netsplit.
We had some IRC junkies at one place I worked. I was impressed with what the other kids would accomplish. They'd take advantage of any remote exploits they could, just to knock someone they didn't like (for whatever reason) off. Then there's the battles over control of a channel. Read up on "netsplit". It's been a while, but I have heard of tier 1 Internet providers having core routers exploited, simply to accomplish a netsplit. It is (was?) more common to have a lower level ISP get hit pretty hard, but....
Anyone who's worked with very many publically accessable machines will know all about the bots. Script kiddies will crawl the Internet looking for some box that they can put their own channel bots into, just for the sake of keeping them in channels, or to accomplish less friendly things.
IRC is a real neat idea, and at times, it's a very cool thing. Sometimes it's a freakin' war zone. Whoever put it into their TOS to disallow IRC specifically is either afraid of it, or has experience there, and knows it can be dangerous.
Sure, they can do everything in their power to avoid the problems with it, but it's a lot easier to forbid it in their terms of service. You don't *NEED* to allow IRC for a normal hosting service. And sure as heck, if you find a hosting service that lets you run IRC related stuff (bots, proxy, whatever), they'll be rejecting you on it, as soon as it becomes a problem for them.
They never needed a master key. A few well directed agents sent down to the MAE's could cripple the Internet. If they wanted it effectively down, shutting down the switches at the MAE's would handle that very quickly.
This is more of selective control. A subversive group has a web site, emails, or whatever, that domain could be redirected anywhere that's advantageous to the government.
For example, if they thought Slashdot.org was a subversive organization, the site could be directed to a gov't network first (or a friendly non-government network). Pass the traffic through to the real Slashdot, but log everything including passwords. Now you'd see everything going in and out, except for those with their own hosts files. Even SSL certs wouldn't help, since I'm sure it isn't hard for the gov't to get a valid cert signed as anyone they want. Even parts could be rewritten during the transfer.
I guess if we follow along with the idea of terrorism, if they were to say do this to gmail, they could filter emails from Osama Bin Landen, so it would simply look like you never received them, or insert their own messages to terrorists. That, of course, is assuming terrorists use email to convey their evil plans. I seem to remember it being in the news that they were embedding data into jpegs, and posting them to public message boards.. {sigh}
And when you have tens of thousands of slaves (err, employees) doing it, that sounds like a bunch of slackers. And ditch the 12 hour day idea, our employees will happily work by torch light!
> Everybody knows the pyramids were created by giant aliens.
You obviously haven't met them. I don't know how many times I've hit my head when I haven't ducked enough through their doorways. Freakin' superintelligent intergalactic species, you'd think they would be able to build a doorway more than 5' tall.
If you put 100 guys with guns vs 100,000 guys with lead pipes and broken bottles, I'd lay odds the 100 guys with guns, no matter how well trained, would win.
Even with air support.
Even with heavy armor.
How many guys does it take to flip a tank? About 300 could lift one, but 2 with bulldozers could make a valiant attempt.
Subversion of the government is still subversion. The government obviously won't tolerate it, because it threatens to take them out of control.
Our founding fathers understood this clearly. Hell, it's the reason the United States (or those pesky colonists) rebelled against England. We didn't like it, we stood up against them, we set up a new government for ourselves.
Unfortunately, our government has more power than the people. They have control over the media (at least to a degree), as well as control over all the larger weapons. It's still only a matter of time. If the government misbehaves enough, there aren't enough troops and law enforcement to quell a nation wide rebellion.
The thing you have to remember is that despite most people's talk, they're passive. There could be a group of hundreds or thousands who march into Washington demanding change with force. Most people will get out of the way. It's all someone else's battle. You can see it every day. Have you ever seen a car accident on the side of the road, with hundreds of cars whizzing by, and no one stopping? Did you stop? Probably not, it's someone else's problem.
In America, the people no longer have their rights, nor are they willing to stand up to correct it. So, sit back, relax, and enjoy whatever is brought upon you. You, with your bearing arms, are the minority, who will be killed in a violent encounter, because there won't be 100,000 others standing behind you, supporting you.
I suspect there's more to it.
I was roughly quoted something on the order of $50,000 for a solar power system for my house. I know I could build it for something more like $15,000, so that company was already making $35,000 for labor and other misc expenses.
Now, where these people are "loaning" you the hardware, that means you're getting say $15,000 retail worth of equipment, which is probably more like $10,000 wholesale. Really, it's probably $7,500, but $10k is a easier number to work with.
Say an average home pays $150/mo for power with the system in place, they've made their money back in 67 months. Anything after that is pure profit. It's kinda like leasing a car. You're paying for the car, but in the end, you don't own it.
I strongly suspect somewhere in the fine print of the document, the life of the "loan" extends until you've used enough power, and paid their "reduced" rate, to cover the cost of the "loan". More than likely, you're wrapped up in a 80 month contract of at least $150/mo. It's a good long-term profit scheme, assuming they can get the customers in. Probably if you default on the loan, you are now responsible for their early termination fee, which I'm sure is roughly the cost of the equipment, plus a small profit.
Really, it's not much different than what cell phone providers, and satellite TV providers are doing. Consider someone like DirecTV. You get a "free" satellite system, which includes 4 receivers and a dish, installed. With this, you're signing a 2 year agreement. You're really getting a few hundred bucks worth of stuff, and they get you in a service contract for a couple years. More than likely, you'll keep using the equipment beyond the end of the original contract, so they'll continue to make money for a long time.
Personally, I'd rather own the solar equipment, but hey, if they want to give it to me, cool.
Actually, you're on the right track for what we really need to be doing.
... well, we all read Slashdot. Multicore, multighz, multiprocessor. Anything we may be reading Slashdot with, including our cell phones, will be faster than anything even 58 years ago.
:)
Look at any technological advances. The first generation (1st model) is rough and inefficient. Each subsequent model gets better and faster.
We'll take your 70 year example
1938 Ford 2 door standard
versus
2007 Ford Mustang GT
Both have 4 tires, 4 seats, and 2 doors.
The '07 Mustang will get you there and back a lot faster and more comfortably.
How about.
1951 - Univac 1
vs
How about something related to the topic. Aircraft.
The Hughes H-1 7 hours, 28 minutes, at 332 mph. Oohh.
versus
Well, book a ticket on the airline of your choice. You'll be exceeding 500mph, at over 40,000 feet.
The running theme here is that they were all built. They weren't the final finished product. They were earlier attempts, which were built on in the future.
If we sit back and theorize about "the Ark", then it'll never get built. If we build the first one, regardless if it will take 70 or 150 years to reach it's destination, at least it was built.
In 10 years, improvements or a better craft can be sent to take them farther on their journey.
In 30 years, an even better one can be sent.
In 60 years, commuter service will already be established to their final destination, with round trips in 10 days.
On the 70th year, that 10 day trip will take 1 day (mostly waiting in line, and filling out paperwork, I'm sure). At the destination, they can celebrate the arrival of the original craft, as it would signify what 70 years of advancements have brought.
We are really slacking at our advancements. We, as a society, are more interested in personal wealth and taking it from others, than advancement of humanity. No? really? But you have your job, so you can get a better car, a nicer house, a hotter chick, better vacations, better benefits, and of course, you're looking for the better job because your job just isn't enough. You'll accept the fact that your country is at war with someone else over their natural resources, because you aren't getting shot at every day. Blah, blah, blah......
We're never going to get off this rock, because humanity will NEVER get it's act together. Even if we play nice (ISS), we'll make it so expensive, and keep it tied up in red tape so long, that it will be an impractical exercise in futility. We will live here, and we will die here. In who knows how many years, another race will evolve and find our ruins, and just wonder who we were.
In the last 30-some years, the only better spacecraft have been kept under wraps by "national security", or cut because of costs (or so we're told). (see Blackstar). But hey, they did finally put color displays in the space shuttle.
We have much better things to spend our money on, dammit. The war in Iraq has cost over $400,000,000,000 (yes, I got the zero's right). The entire cost of the shuttle program (STS) has been $145 billion, but don't forget that cost includes several huge complexes, staff (besides the astronauts), a couple Boeing 747's specially rigged to carry the shuttle around, a BIG tractor to drag it around KSC, etc, etc, etc.. You get the idea. Lots of overhead. Even still, we could have done the space program 4 times over, each generation being better than the last, for what the Iraq war has cost
You're so right. Well, actually the first reply is right, they won't even contact you.
I'm having that problem now. Not that I'm over educated, but I'm over experienced. I guess the years that I've been doing my work overshadows most other people.
Unfortunately, I'm to the point that I *NEED* a job. I don't care if it's a lower job, under someone who doesn't know half of what I know. Eventually they'll move on or be fired, and I can move up to a position I deserve.
Nonviolence has it's place. It's usually where negotiations bring a reasonable conclusion for both parties.
But, there's a reason there are loaded handguns in my house. I may choose to use the nonviolent solutions, but should the day come where the other party isn't playing so nice, I have the option.
I forgot to mention your irony. Well, not exactly irony, but you've spelled it out well. The terrorists used one action to set in motion their real goal. The US has been destabilized for almost 6 years. People trust their government less, and a couple kids putting light-brights around town can cripple one of America's largest cities due to the fear. Oh my gosh Martha, what shall we do? There's a light bright! It must be the bad guys finally back to get us.
I guess I see the problem though. There is a strong Christian following in our administration. This is a running theme in Christianity. Something bad happened 2,000 years ago, and (theoretically) we know he's coming back for more. I'm not all that into christian mythology, but I think it's Revelations, or something of that sort? I guess if we follow in the current trend, we'll be playing this game for a long, long time.
You mention the damage WWII caused through Europe, and to those of foreign descent in the US. There are wrongs that go back a lot farther. I usually refer to "Thanksgiving" as "the celebration of the white man's conquest of the Indian lands". But hey, whatever. In the end, they got casino's and radioactive desert. We got
It's a great country we live in.
Trust your government.
Your government is here to protect you.
Your government loves you.
I couldn't agree more. However, I take serious issue witih the first part of your comment...
This kind of attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country right now. Living in fear of LED signs is exactly what the terrorists want. They're called terrorists. They intend to terrorize us. If we can't walk down the street without freaking out when we see some blinking lights, they have achieved their objective.
Just because we're in a "Post 9/11 World" doesn't mean that we have to freak out and assume that everything out of the ordinary is a terrorist plot. Keep your wits about you, think critically, and respond accordingly. People running around freaking out is only going to make us less safe. Thank you for saying this.. I've told plenty of people exactly the same thing, but it seems no one listens.
The government has been playing the game right out of the Cold War Play Book. An enemy attacks us, they obviously have a goal to conquer or destroy.
Unfortunately, terrorists aren't playing by the same set of rules. Their goal is to destabilize through fear. They launched a single attack almost 6 years ago, and the American response is "Oh my gosh, it's another attack!" We are terrified. We're scared of each other, of the government, and of some vague group on the other side of the world, who don't have the means to stage a traditional war, or even a single battle.
But hey, we're defending ourselves from terrorism, even if it means scaring all of our civilians into believing anything may be the next attack, and reinforcing the idea that the next attack is coming, even though there is no need for a next attack, because the first one is STILL doing it's job.
That's really neat around Los Angeles, especially in the hills. Someone had a PWS only a few miles from my house, so it gave me great results. The closest "official" weather station was 10 miles to my west, and 1500 feet below me. Temperature, wind, and even humidity were always wrong from the "offical" site.
Eventually, I plan on putting up a PWS. Who knows when though.
You don't need to be lacking the radar.
You'd have to google around for the page, but I had seen a site, where a guy had taken a naval weather radar unit, that he had picked up surplus, mounted the antenna on his roof, and attached the rest to his computer.
But, you can grab weather radar images from a whole slew of sites, and use only what's specific to you. While your instrumentation can see YOUR location, and your own radar could see 15 miles or so, using other services is very useful.
Actually, checking arrival and departures does help estimate if your luggage will arrive with you.
If you get off flight 1 with 5 minutes to get to flight 2, your bags may not be unloaded from flight 1 until flight 2 is already on the runway.
Been there, done that, got my luggage the next day.
But, I agree, he's looking in the wrong place. I can imagine it would be a bit tricky to calculate if rain estimations are right. If they gave a 10% chance of rain, that still leaves the possibility for no rain. How do you evaluate that for accuracy?
My cell phone has a little applet on it, that gives the weather report with 7 day forecasts, current conditions, etc, etc. The current temp is usually close to right, verified with a good ol' mercury thermometer hanging on the wall. They only show 4 bars indicating the chance of rain though. I presume if the first bar is lit, that's 0% to 25%. To get a real number, they also provide the national weather service text.
I grew up in Florida, and my dad watched the weather every day, so I grew up learning to read weather maps. I find it more useful to take the weather report, and then decide if it's right for my location based on the maps, just like the forecasters do. For example, it may not rain at location 1, but it'll be pouring rain at location 2, only 50 miles away, because that's the edge of a large cloud mass. Broadcast weather reports can't take into account exactly where you are. They cover a broad area. Here in Florida, the whole state may be getting dumped on, or you may find it raining in your front yard, and sunny in the back. While I'd never attempt to guess at which part of the yard will be rained on, I can make an educated guess based on the available facts, rather than taking a "10% chance of rain" by a guy in a building 30 miles away, who's reading a report from the NWS, and simplifying it for the masses.
I was kind of wondering about that. I know the maps are frequently wrong. I'm in a suburb of a major US city. Even here, Google Maps showed us on the wrong side of the road, and 2 houses away. Now, we're on the right side of the road, but still not the right house.
I know there are plenty of places in rural America, not terribly far outside of the cities even, where unexpected vehicles may be met with guns drawn.
I've also known plenty of people who live in houses that aren't visible from the road. I wonder how they'll handle that. They'd have to go through a closed gate, and up a private driveway, just to be able to see the house.