Agreed, unfortunately they are predicting a population of 9 billion in 2050, and 10 billion by 2150. So issues are coming that will likely require population control, and some version of rationing. Anyone thinking we can sustain 10 billion cars is crazy, regardless we develop some super battery. Hopes of the next generation (more than the top 5% anyway) having it better than the current generation are very unlikely if the next generation is 10+ billion people, and want to enjoy energy consuming hobbies.
free from economic intervention and regulation by government
thats correct, and if you read wikipedia, their are many rules required to be followed for a free market. It doesn't even require a government to enforce all those rules (but I still don't see how that would violate having a free market, since by definition a free market doesn't have these issues, therefore how they get enforced doesn't matter) , something as simple as good communications for people is enforcement (reviews, etc.) Regardless it doesn't matter if it is voluntary, customer enforced, or government enforced I would stick to the wikipedia quote for free markets "By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other" If that is the case, then problems caused by most monopolies should not be at issue to free market ideology (if they are following the rules).
I can think of a few reasons. Reason 1) He wants to know if amazon is undercutting his current paper subscriptions (IE are the dropping paper for the E-Version). 2) reader demographics are important to advertisers 3) he probably currently sells this info, at least internally for direct marketing. 4) he wants to be prepared to drop amazon for someone who will give more profits to himself, and wants to be able to make direct offers to amazon customers to move them to the new channel. Reason #1 seams like a fair use of the info, Reason #2 could be covered by amazon sending just the statistics. all other reasons are non of his biz.
Don't you think society has broken down when so many people feel the need to carry guns?
I see very, very few people who care to carry guns here, despite no laws preventing them. I don't recall seeing any one else's gun this year outside of people I went hunting/target shooting with yet this year, and law enforcement personal. I would not go to any place that I would feel the need to carry to be protected. Granted that is a common claim for anti-gun lobbyists in the US, no doubt, but that seams more like chest thumping, than reality. But despite owning several guns (rifles and shotguns) none of them (with the ammo I have) would be a weapon of choice for combat, all have been used for sport, and the last use was home defense, a rattle snake that came back 3 days in a row. All I can say about your concern with my thoughts on killing, is that I try to judge realistic threats. I had at least 50 deadly weapons pointed within a few feet of me today, all vehicles, to not acknowledge them is not smart. Anyone (in the US) more concerned with guns than road rage/driving distracted, etc is not very good at categorizing realistic threats to their life.
- Just, merely state that as a Danish citizen I'm happy with the strict gun policy and never regardless of the arguments you may bring up going to find nonrestrictive gun policies sane.
And I am even happier to live in a part of the USA where they don't have to keep guns away from people to keep them from killing each other. I feel very sorry that at some point, your society reached a low point that it was no longer safe to trust fellow citizens with a otherwise useful tool, because they cant be trusted to have sufficient self control over their own actions. (I am not saying gun violence doesn't happen here, I am just saying removing guns would make a insignificant or even negative change)
Where I live, no permit is need to purchase and or carry a gun in public, in your car, or even in 90% of stores (as long as it is not concealed, or $45 class for concealed.) The fact that I am safe with, or without a gun gives me confidence in the people around me. I agree in places where society has broke down, and people can't control themselves may need Gun control if the true causes can't be addressed first. I wouldn't advise giving out guns to people in many areas, I also don't care to live or even visit any of those places.
But also everyone in the US are trusted with access, and many have sufficient skill at machinery/lathes/chemistry/education. With access to those, it is impossible to prevent rapid fire weapons from being brought into existence anyway. So we might as well allow those with safety mechanisms be sold, so that those without don't need to be.
Even in the US it is stupid to kill someone with a gun, they leave to much of a trace, and are so accurate it is very difficult to claim it as anything but intent. It is much smarter to use something like a vehicle/poison/trap since they can then claim it was purely a accident (if caught), and less evidence (distinctive sounds/markings/powders) anyway. By allowing a simple solution, it is easier to catch/get rid of those criminals lazy/crazy enough that they used a gun anyway.
I know the ad-block plus authors offered to add a whitelist, but I don't see the option currently. I would prefer a adblock option to "show one advert of maximum bandwidth/size/type..." perhaps even give websites the option to pass a flag to adblock for that one advert, and if they fall outside the rules, they get no adds through.
XP shutdown actually destroyed my laptop. I hit shutdown, waited a minute to start shutdown, closed the lid and put it into my bag. The next morning I opened the bag and heat was pouring out of the bag, some warning message about serial port still in use or driver failed, but XP had disabled power savings, and it wouldn't shutdown until the only choice "OK" was clicked. How valuable was that dialog? The hard drive didn't work a lick, and the screen was discolored after that. With netbooks shutdown time is important. Battery gets down to 1% on my eee with linux, and a 5s boot 3s power down (had to change power button default) I can do a email check cycle in about 30 seconds. so 5 minutes of battery remaining gives me 10 email checks. With XP it may be 2 minutes, so I should be able to get 2 email checks, but its longer than my attention span. So I hit boot, close the lid to keep the screen off, get distracted, and the last of my battery is gone before I even saw my email. Now if I find a plug in to check email right before the flight, I gotta watch to interrupt the disk checking or it will be 5 minutes to get to that email and my flight will be gone.
It is interesting that the prices in that 2 year old article, the delivered electric cost (for me) is double the quoted price (little over $.20/kwhr, no night rate available), and the cost for fuel is 20% lower ($2.40). Thus the 90 mpg they quote works back to be about 36 MPG for the electric, still ignoring the cost of the battery. what would be interesting to me, is the range of a natural gas powered vehicle, if it wasn't compressed to a liquid for density. With it costing 1/3 of electric per BTU, and also delivered to our homes. Its just a pain to get/keep pressurized to a liquid for density.
sounds about right, you increase your initial all out highway drive by 1/3. With 5 hp generator you should be able to average probably 20 mph from that point, with some charging before high speed runs? Go to 10 hp generator and you get to 35-40 indefinite, but a 200 mile all out from a full charge before you slow to that average (I assume you would start your slowing before you got to 0 charge...)
I find it amazing you brag about how your generator doesn't meet emissions standards. Emissions standards are there for a reason.
NO!! I said a lessor standard, not no standard. See emissions are mostly PPM regulations. So running 2 different ratings motors with the same emissions, one at 50 hp, the other at 5hp. The 50 hp would likely emit 10* the amount of pollution. So while the 5hp generator regulation allows it to generate 5* more pollution, than a car per cubic foot of exhaust. It is likely producing 1/10th the amount of exhaust while running. So having a occasional use motor, that is allowed to be cheaper, and possibly even more efficient is a good thing. Using this generator on road trips when your out of the polluted citys, into a environment that can process the emissions naturally is another bonus. (sarcasm on)Oh yah, and the Al Gore complex. as long as everyone else cleans up their act, then my impact doesn't matter anymore./sarcasm
I cant think of any reason to own either a series hybrid or a electric car, but thanks for asking. (I am very interested in the Chevy hybrid pickups that act like a backup gen set as well as a car though)
Do you not see the advantages?
1) Already own (and need for other uses) a perfectly good generator.
2) Why always carry the weight back and forth when not needed, strap it on only when needed.
3) flexibility. You could own/maintain one engine per household and move to where needed, instead of one per vehicle.
I agree, what I would like to see are all electric drive trailers. Parking is a pain for many, but a all wheel steer, all wheel drive trailer could be pulled behind something like a Camaro (with a cooling system upgrade.) Currently you can't tow much with most cars, because they have to weigh more than the load to manhandle it around corners, stops, emergency moves. Electric + load cell on the hitch you could guarantee a purely steering neutral pull on the car, since electric motors can nearly instantly change torque/loads, so you could even have one wheel braking feeding the other wheel around corners. Charge the battery into hills, etc. The all wheel steer could help out those drivers who can't back a trailer, Most could then replace our trucks with a car and no worry about those days needing hauling. If the trailer could be fitted to be a flat bed, but slide a RV camper under it also, I could haul heavy/bulky stuff, camping, and then the hybrid can also be applied to any existing vehicles immediately. Heck if this could be flexible enough to be quickly stripped down to a single axle with a direct connect hydraulic lift, during parking it could be hoisted into the air without steered wheels. Working on all existing vehicles, and transferable to new cars.
references? for all contenders so far, the battery cost alone drive the cost higher than gas (IE find the real cost of batterys divide by miles the are expected to last). With diesel smart cars getting 50 mpg= 2000 Gallons per 100k miles, you'll have to find me a battery under 5000 dollars that will last (and is in production and real today)? Although lead acid golf cart batterys might be close, those gives up almost 1/2 the energy, and thus costs more to operate than a gasoline car. Don't get me wrong, their will be many markets this works out, like mail delivery, etc that are 5 minutes stops, etc that would be more convenient with all electric.
I was wondering if I could do the same thing I have for camping trips. I have a front and rear receiver hitch, and a 220V generator on a mount that slides into the receiver hitch. It's 5 hp, and runs a RV air conditioner for 5 hours on under 5 gallons, I am sure you could do a better generator mount than this guy if we get a hitch mount, and just plug the car charger into it for road trips, ditch the weight for in town. Hopefully the chargers aren't locked out while moving. Not only does the GEN not have to meet as many emissions standards ( = cheaper) but has other uses also.
I would mandate a minimum of 27mpg on the new vehicle
The minimum requirement for the $4500 is 22 mpg for a car + 10 MPG improvement over old car. Granted the SUV requirement of 15+2 is not as large, but it makes as big of difference. IE if you go from 10MPG to 15 MPG (50% change) over 100k miles you save 3400 gallons. if you go from 25 to 50 MPG (100% change) you save only 2000 gallons over the same miles. Which is a big reason why the hybrid/electric cars don't (currently) make much economic sense, when a 310HP V6 camaro vs a prius only saves about 200 gallons, or $500 per year. or comparable cars would be a yarus vs a prius that would save maybe 120 gallons a year ($300) yet costs $10,000 more up front, thats 600,000 miles (up to a million miles if you borrowed the money at just 2% interest) for the prius to pay for it's self. (I guess thats my path anyway, compared prius to yarus, prefered the cost/pep of the yarus, but liked more than twice the ride of the camaro @ 2* the price of the yarus, but same $$ as the prius.)
I did read it more as a "welfare state (concept)" doesn't have to create the problem, but this welfare state (implementation) doesn't reduce the problem as intended. I always felt like their needs to be multiple different quotas. IE welfare females that put-out to welfare males = bad. welfare females should have to either babysit, or other productive work like putting out to nerds, or other socialy challenged males that need their social training = good.
Assuming you can get to the network stack from the malicious bios, then the "steals it again" might be as simple as, waits for a network connection, to start transferring. The only novel thing I see, is having a malicious true crypt stack means that it could then send the credentials out, then even after you remove all the malware and change your volume password unless you create a new truecrypt volume, some data will be vulnerable to the hacker long into the future. It does make me wonder if a combination keypad for a external usb drive would help, IE it has truecrypt that combines the external password with the PC entered password and avoids having any access to the entire password exposed to the PC OS. Of course that means you have to protect the BIOS of the usb dongle, and that a windows virus could still access the drive data while mounted. But at least you could prevent all of your data from being constantly available. And not have to always completely trust every bit of the hardware, BIOS, and OS.
just so we agree on terms a free market is not a market without laws, that would not be welcome. But one where laws still prevent coercion and ensure fair dealing etc, just without government management of prices, supplies, and resources.
Most monopolies are actually a optimal open market solution, and are generally kept in check even in a free market. Natural monopolies are markets where fewer suppliers are more efficient, and if they get out of control (take to much profit, or become too high cost) in a open market, suppliers will enter driving high cost producers out of the market. The issues with monopolies come in when they violate the rules that are also present in free markets, since it is very difficult to enforce the free market rules, it is seen as easier to just regulate the effects, and not the cause. Which just becomes a cat and mouse game, which you then cant just go back to a free market without first fixing the underlying corruption. So while I agree we are stuck in a situation where de-regulation can't work.
I don't think you read that correctly, it is about being allowed to also charge to cover for download costs of the source. It clearly states they could charge anything they wanted for the binary, but not only that they could require proof of purchase of the binary, and even charge another smaller charge for anyone wanting the source. If the only way to get the source was through itunes, then your post would make sense to me, but thats not the case. If I recall RMS has make it clear, that he doesn't approve of trying to make a profit with no contributions given back, or value added. IE if someone simply grabs completed source, and copyrights a name and starts selling the work perhaps even pointing at someone else's server for the source, it would violate the spirit. That was somewhat why Tivo may have violated the RMS spirit, not by selling a closed platform, but by making sure almost everything they contributed back provided no benefit, by requiring closed bits to be uefull. But also their source release, and patents seamed to be intended by TIVO to prevent people from using any of the GPL source code, that they were required to provide, to help develop or extend any similar application.
A good summary. Especially since they assume because we sent out a "identifier" once, that it is logical that all other civ's would continuously do that, just in case things change, and some youngsters show up. Instead of 1) send probes, get the info you want (or trash your orbit with satellites and crap so you can't lunch anything else) and give up, staying in your own solar system.
Not to mention we only see stuff at the speed of light, if they only send stuff at 1/10 the speed of light. Anyone over a thousand light years away hasn't even seen any signs of life in our galaxy yet, let alone had a chance to respond in a manner that we will then be able to see for a few thousand more light years.
Myth busters did bust this myth twice as well The difference in 2 feet vs 3in would be 12 milliseconds instead of 1.5 ms. Since it is still the same amount of energy hitting both the gun holder, and the thief. So barring a outside force they would each reach the same speed, the only difference is the shooter would have 1/8th of the acceleration rate, but for 8 times as long of period of time, with both eventually reaching the same final velocity change. So the shooter has a extra 11 milliseconds to counteract the force than the target would have. With the average reaction of a human being @ ~215 ms, their is no way that you have had any muscle reactions to make any counter force during that extra 11ms. >A shotgun can easily put an unwary shooter off-balance, so it would do worse to the target. only if the target was either hit at a higher location in the body than the shooter, or if the target had less momentum (IE running away, not towards the shooter. kinda defeats the purpose of knocking them down if they are running away already.) >they'll be severely hurting and knocked around. The question was more about hitting a bullet proof vest that stops the bullet, compared to say a 22-250 rifle that has more kick than a shotgun slug, and a much smaller projectile, it will lose less energy getting to the target, thus have more knockdown momentum, and more penetration power if a vest is in the way (but a hollow point expands similarly, after impact). Therefore a all around better solution IMHO. Only advantage to the shotgun I can think of is it has more flexibility in ammunition (alternate slugs, and shot for example), and a pump action has a very distinctive sound, that is more intimidating than just silence before the shot (if you want to "give notice".)
All Security is through obscurity at some point (IE the end point password/credentials), which I think is Apples point. If suppliers are not allowed to protect the end-point from malicious programs, then these malicious program can steal your identity/login credentials, and if those credentials can be loaded into another phone, due to a Jail break... Of course Apple is trying to ignore that the cell tower backbone issues are unrelated to why people want to Jail break their I-phones, and thus making up some hypothetical worst case to make their point. If (like most other smart phone providers) they provided safe open API's that allowed all 3rd party applications to run without a jail break, then most everyone would agree with the need to prevent hacking cell phone firmware (for any hardware that will be used on the cell phone networks, at least.)
especially those which have the capability to install software on them
Apple is correct in a sense, making all phone hacking legal is wrong. ie their is a line once crossed you should not be allowed onto wireless networks (hacking the chip id/firmware.) (I think even that should be legal as long as the device is not reconnected to the cell network.) Those more open devices that allow all software on them have exposed "safe API's" that are allowed to be used by the customers, and thus no hacking required. I agree, that is safer than the I-phone method, where Apple forces you to hack your device to get the same functionality. Obviously this is just a straw man by apple, they want to protect their income stream with full application control, by saying in affect "but what about the hackers who go to far? we must treat all hackers the same, to stop the terrorists.".
I don't think DRM is required to be able to "deny access to... Whenever they want" That's the feature of a device with a constant network connection that's not controlled by the customer. I guess DRM lets them get away with it, because they are a "monopoly with the patents" and DRM allows them to only sell their content to the kindle (and visa a versa), thus keeping the market closed to competitors on either hardware or content (competitors have to be big enough to do both hardware and software simultaneously, and pay royalties at the same time.)
If the body armor does stop it, they'll be flat on their backs regardless.
conservation of energy does mean that it won't gain energy in flight, so it will not impact with any more energy than what the gun put into the shooter first (except for a recoiless, or mounted gun.) With a person running at you, unless they are too light to shoot the same load without being knocked on their ass, the bullet wont either. So yeah unleash a double barrel 10 gauge and you will both be sitting on you asses, assuming both hit the target. Your going to want something with penetration (small caliber) if worried about body armored entry. My choice would be something like a hollow point, specifically designed to prevent a second hit, it may go through the wall, but not likely a person, and will likely be non lethal at that point. A ballistic tip, or a black talon load should be better at getting through the jacket, and not having any next room, or next person issues either.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, unfortunately they are predicting a population of 9 billion in 2050, and 10 billion by 2150. So issues are coming that will likely require population control, and some version of rationing. Anyone thinking we can sustain 10 billion cars is crazy, regardless we develop some super battery. Hopes of the next generation (more than the top 5% anyway) having it better than the current generation are very unlikely if the next generation is 10+ billion people, and want to enjoy energy consuming hobbies.
Wow, you mean like the data protection laws that Europe has had for decades?
Your bank details belong to us, well since Sept 2001 anyway, almost a decade.
free from economic intervention and regulation by government
thats correct, and if you read wikipedia, their are many rules required to be followed for a free market. It doesn't even require a government to enforce all those rules (but I still don't see how that would violate having a free market, since by definition a free market doesn't have these issues, therefore how they get enforced doesn't matter) , something as simple as good communications for people is enforcement (reviews, etc.) Regardless it doesn't matter if it is voluntary, customer enforced, or government enforced I would stick to the wikipedia quote for free markets "By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other" If that is the case, then problems caused by most monopolies should not be at issue to free market ideology (if they are following the rules).
Why do you need the names of your subscribers?
I can think of a few reasons. Reason 1) He wants to know if amazon is undercutting his current paper subscriptions (IE are the dropping paper for the E-Version). 2) reader demographics are important to advertisers 3) he probably currently sells this info, at least internally for direct marketing. 4) he wants to be prepared to drop amazon for someone who will give more profits to himself, and wants to be able to make direct offers to amazon customers to move them to the new channel.
Reason #1 seams like a fair use of the info, Reason #2 could be covered by amazon sending just the statistics. all other reasons are non of his biz.
Don't you think society has broken down when so many people feel the need to carry guns?
I see very, very few people who care to carry guns here, despite no laws preventing them. I don't recall seeing any one else's gun this year outside of people I went hunting/target shooting with yet this year, and law enforcement personal. I would not go to any place that I would feel the need to carry to be protected. Granted that is a common claim for anti-gun lobbyists in the US, no doubt, but that seams more like chest thumping, than reality. But despite owning several guns (rifles and shotguns) none of them (with the ammo I have) would be a weapon of choice for combat, all have been used for sport, and the last use was home defense, a rattle snake that came back 3 days in a row.
All I can say about your concern with my thoughts on killing, is that I try to judge realistic threats. I had at least 50 deadly weapons pointed within a few feet of me today, all vehicles, to not acknowledge them is not smart. Anyone (in the US) more concerned with guns than road rage/driving distracted, etc is not very good at categorizing realistic threats to their life.
- Just, merely state that as a Danish citizen I'm happy with the strict gun policy and never regardless of the arguments you may bring up going to find nonrestrictive gun policies sane.
And I am even happier to live in a part of the USA where they don't have to keep guns away from people to keep them from killing each other. I feel very sorry that at some point, your society reached a low point that it was no longer safe to trust fellow citizens with a otherwise useful tool, because they cant be trusted to have sufficient self control over their own actions. (I am not saying gun violence doesn't happen here, I am just saying removing guns would make a insignificant or even negative change)
Where I live, no permit is need to purchase and or carry a gun in public, in your car, or even in 90% of stores (as long as it is not concealed, or $45 class for concealed.) The fact that I am safe with, or without a gun gives me confidence in the people around me. I agree in places where society has broke down, and people can't control themselves may need Gun control if the true causes can't be addressed first. I wouldn't advise giving out guns to people in many areas, I also don't care to live or even visit any of those places.
But also everyone in the US are trusted with access, and many have sufficient skill at machinery/lathes/chemistry/education. With access to those, it is impossible to prevent rapid fire weapons from being brought into existence anyway. So we might as well allow those with safety mechanisms be sold, so that those without don't need to be.
Even in the US it is stupid to kill someone with a gun, they leave to much of a trace, and are so accurate it is very difficult to claim it as anything but intent. It is much smarter to use something like a vehicle/poison/trap since they can then claim it was purely a accident (if caught), and less evidence (distinctive sounds/markings/powders) anyway. By allowing a simple solution, it is easier to catch/get rid of those criminals lazy/crazy enough that they used a gun anyway.
I know the ad-block plus authors offered to add a whitelist, but I don't see the option currently. I would prefer a adblock option to "show one advert of maximum bandwidth/size/type..." perhaps even give websites the option to pass a flag to adblock for that one advert, and if they fall outside the rules, they get no adds through.
XP shutdown actually destroyed my laptop. I hit shutdown, waited a minute to start shutdown, closed the lid and put it into my bag. The next morning I opened the bag and heat was pouring out of the bag, some warning message about serial port still in use or driver failed, but XP had disabled power savings, and it wouldn't shutdown until the only choice "OK" was clicked. How valuable was that dialog? The hard drive didn't work a lick, and the screen was discolored after that.
With netbooks shutdown time is important. Battery gets down to 1% on my eee with linux, and a 5s boot 3s power down (had to change power button default) I can do a email check cycle in about 30 seconds. so 5 minutes of battery remaining gives me 10 email checks.
With XP it may be 2 minutes, so I should be able to get 2 email checks, but its longer than my attention span. So I hit boot, close the lid to keep the screen off, get distracted, and the last of my battery is gone before I even saw my email. Now if I find a plug in to check email right before the flight, I gotta watch to interrupt the disk checking or it will be 5 minutes to get to that email and my flight will be gone.
It is interesting that the prices in that 2 year old article, the delivered electric cost (for me) is double the quoted price (little over $.20/kwhr, no night rate available), and the cost for fuel is 20% lower ($2.40). Thus the 90 mpg they quote works back to be about 36 MPG for the electric, still ignoring the cost of the battery.
what would be interesting to me, is the range of a natural gas powered vehicle, if it wasn't compressed to a liquid for density. With it costing 1/3 of electric per BTU, and also delivered to our homes. Its just a pain to get/keep pressurized to a liquid for density.
sounds about right, you increase your initial all out highway drive by 1/3. With 5 hp generator you should be able to average probably 20 mph from that point, with some charging before high speed runs? Go to 10 hp generator and you get to 35-40 indefinite, but a 200 mile all out from a full charge before you slow to that average (I assume you would start your slowing before you got to 0 charge...)
I find it amazing you brag about how your generator doesn't meet emissions standards. Emissions standards are there for a reason.
NO!! I said a lessor standard, not no standard. See emissions are mostly PPM regulations. So running 2 different ratings motors with the same emissions, one at 50 hp, the other at 5hp. The 50 hp would likely emit 10* the amount of pollution. So while the 5hp generator regulation allows it to generate 5* more pollution, than a car per cubic foot of exhaust. It is likely producing 1/10th the amount of exhaust while running. So having a occasional use motor, that is allowed to be cheaper, and possibly even more efficient is a good thing. Using this generator on road trips when your out of the polluted citys, into a environment that can process the emissions naturally is another bonus. /sarcasm
(sarcasm on)Oh yah, and the Al Gore complex. as long as everyone else cleans up their act, then my impact doesn't matter anymore.
I cant think of any reason to own either a series hybrid or a electric car, but thanks for asking. (I am very interested in the Chevy hybrid pickups that act like a backup gen set as well as a car though)
Do you not see the advantages?
1) Already own (and need for other uses) a perfectly good generator.
2) Why always carry the weight back and forth when not needed, strap it on only when needed.
3) flexibility. You could own/maintain one engine per household and move to where needed, instead of one per vehicle.
I agree, what I would like to see are all electric drive trailers. Parking is a pain for many, but a all wheel steer, all wheel drive trailer could be pulled behind something like a Camaro (with a cooling system upgrade.) Currently you can't tow much with most cars, because they have to weigh more than the load to manhandle it around corners, stops, emergency moves. Electric + load cell on the hitch you could guarantee a purely steering neutral pull on the car, since electric motors can nearly instantly change torque/loads, so you could even have one wheel braking feeding the other wheel around corners. Charge the battery into hills, etc. The all wheel steer could help out those drivers who can't back a trailer,
Most could then replace our trucks with a car and no worry about those days needing hauling. If the trailer could be fitted to be a flat bed, but slide a RV camper under it also, I could haul heavy/bulky stuff, camping, and then the hybrid can also be applied to any existing vehicles immediately.
Heck if this could be flexible enough to be quickly stripped down to a single axle with a direct connect hydraulic lift, during parking it could be hoisted into the air without steered wheels. Working on all existing vehicles, and transferable to new cars.
and it's still going to be far cheaper than gas.
references? for all contenders so far, the battery cost alone drive the cost higher than gas (IE find the real cost of batterys divide by miles the are expected to last). With diesel smart cars getting 50 mpg= 2000 Gallons per 100k miles, you'll have to find me a battery under 5000 dollars that will last (and is in production and real today)? Although lead acid golf cart batterys might be close, those gives up almost 1/2 the energy, and thus costs more to operate than a gasoline car.
Don't get me wrong, their will be many markets this works out, like mail delivery, etc that are 5 minutes stops, etc that would be more convenient with all electric.
I was wondering if I could do the same thing I have for camping trips. I have a front and rear receiver hitch, and a 220V generator on a mount that slides into the receiver hitch. It's 5 hp, and runs a RV air conditioner for 5 hours on under 5 gallons, I am sure you could do a better generator mount than this guy if we get a hitch mount, and just plug the car charger into it for road trips, ditch the weight for in town. Hopefully the chargers aren't locked out while moving. Not only does the GEN not have to meet as many emissions standards ( = cheaper) but has other uses also.
I would mandate a minimum of 27mpg on the new vehicle
The minimum requirement for the $4500 is 22 mpg for a car + 10 MPG improvement over old car. Granted the SUV requirement of 15+2 is not as large, but it makes as big of difference.
IE if you go from 10MPG to 15 MPG (50% change) over 100k miles you save 3400 gallons. if you go from 25 to 50 MPG (100% change) you save only 2000 gallons over the same miles.
Which is a big reason why the hybrid/electric cars don't (currently) make much economic sense, when a 310HP V6 camaro vs a prius only saves about 200 gallons, or $500 per year. or comparable cars would be a yarus vs a prius that would save maybe 120 gallons a year ($300) yet costs $10,000 more up front, thats 600,000 miles (up to a million miles if you borrowed the money at just 2% interest) for the prius to pay for it's self. (I guess thats my path anyway, compared prius to yarus, prefered the cost/pep of the yarus, but liked more than twice the ride of the camaro @ 2* the price of the yarus, but same $$ as the prius.)
I did read it more as a "welfare state (concept)" doesn't have to create the problem, but this welfare state (implementation) doesn't reduce the problem as intended.
I always felt like their needs to be multiple different quotas. IE welfare females that put-out to welfare males = bad. welfare females should have to either babysit, or other productive work like putting out to nerds, or other socialy challenged males that need their social training = good.
Assuming you can get to the network stack from the malicious bios, then the "steals it again" might be as simple as, waits for a network connection, to start transferring.
The only novel thing I see, is having a malicious true crypt stack means that it could then send the credentials out, then even after you remove all the malware and change your volume password unless you create a new truecrypt volume, some data will be vulnerable to the hacker long into the future.
It does make me wonder if a combination keypad for a external usb drive would help, IE it has truecrypt that combines the external password with the PC entered password and avoids having any access to the entire password exposed to the PC OS. Of course that means you have to protect the BIOS of the usb dongle, and that a windows virus could still access the drive data while mounted. But at least you could prevent all of your data from being constantly available. And not have to always completely trust every bit of the hardware, BIOS, and OS.
just so we agree on terms a free market is not a market without laws, that would not be welcome. But one where laws still prevent coercion and ensure fair dealing etc, just without government management of prices, supplies, and resources.
Most monopolies are actually a optimal open market solution, and are generally kept in check even in a free market. Natural monopolies are markets where fewer suppliers are more efficient, and if they get out of control (take to much profit, or become too high cost) in a open market, suppliers will enter driving high cost producers out of the market. The issues with monopolies come in when they violate the rules that are also present in free markets, since it is very difficult to enforce the free market rules, it is seen as easier to just regulate the effects, and not the cause. Which just becomes a cat and mouse game, which you then cant just go back to a free market without first fixing the underlying corruption. So while I agree we are stuck in a situation where de-regulation can't work.
I don't think you read that correctly, it is about being allowed to also charge to cover for download costs of the source. It clearly states they could charge anything they wanted for the binary, but not only that they could require proof of purchase of the binary, and even charge another smaller charge for anyone wanting the source. If the only way to get the source was through itunes, then your post would make sense to me, but thats not the case.
If I recall RMS has make it clear, that he doesn't approve of trying to make a profit with no contributions given back, or value added. IE if someone simply grabs completed source, and copyrights a name and starts selling the work perhaps even pointing at someone else's server for the source, it would violate the spirit. That was somewhat why Tivo may have violated the RMS spirit, not by selling a closed platform, but by making sure almost everything they contributed back provided no benefit, by requiring closed bits to be uefull. But also their source release, and patents seamed to be intended by TIVO to prevent people from using any of the GPL source code, that they were required to provide, to help develop or extend any similar application.
A good summary. Especially since they assume because we sent out a "identifier" once, that it is logical that all other civ's would continuously do that, just in case things change, and some youngsters show up. Instead of 1) send probes, get the info you want (or trash your orbit with satellites and crap so you can't lunch anything else) and give up, staying in your own solar system.
Not to mention we only see stuff at the speed of light, if they only send stuff at 1/10 the speed of light. Anyone over a thousand light years away hasn't even seen any signs of life in our galaxy yet, let alone had a chance to respond in a manner that we will then be able to see for a few thousand more light years.
Myth busters did bust this myth twice as well
The difference in 2 feet vs 3in would be 12 milliseconds instead of 1.5 ms. Since it is still the same amount of energy hitting both the gun holder, and the thief. So barring a outside force they would each reach the same speed, the only difference is the shooter would have 1/8th of the acceleration rate, but for 8 times as long of period of time, with both eventually reaching the same final velocity change.
So the shooter has a extra 11 milliseconds to counteract the force than the target would have. With the average reaction of a human being @ ~215 ms, their is no way that you have had any muscle reactions to make any counter force during that extra 11ms.
>A shotgun can easily put an unwary shooter off-balance, so it would do worse to the target.
only if the target was either hit at a higher location in the body than the shooter, or if the target had less momentum (IE running away, not towards the shooter. kinda defeats the purpose of knocking them down if they are running away already.)
>they'll be severely hurting and knocked around.
The question was more about hitting a bullet proof vest that stops the bullet, compared to say a 22-250 rifle that has more kick than a shotgun slug, and a much smaller projectile, it will lose less energy getting to the target, thus have more knockdown momentum, and more penetration power if a vest is in the way (but a hollow point expands similarly, after impact). Therefore a all around better solution IMHO. Only advantage to the shotgun I can think of is it has more flexibility in ammunition (alternate slugs, and shot for example), and a pump action has a very distinctive sound, that is more intimidating than just silence before the shot (if you want to "give notice".)
Security by obscurity does not get you very far
All Security is through obscurity at some point (IE the end point password/credentials), which I think is Apples point. If suppliers are not allowed to protect the end-point from malicious programs, then these malicious program can steal your identity/login credentials, and if those credentials can be loaded into another phone, due to a Jail break...
Of course Apple is trying to ignore that the cell tower backbone issues are unrelated to why people want to Jail break their I-phones, and thus making up some hypothetical worst case to make their point. If (like most other smart phone providers) they provided safe open API's that allowed all 3rd party applications to run without a jail break, then most everyone would agree with the need to prevent hacking cell phone firmware (for any hardware that will be used on the cell phone networks, at least.)
especially those which have the capability to install software on them
Apple is correct in a sense, making all phone hacking legal is wrong. ie their is a line once crossed you should not be allowed onto wireless networks (hacking the chip id/firmware.) (I think even that should be legal as long as the device is not reconnected to the cell network.) Those more open devices that allow all software on them have exposed "safe API's" that are allowed to be used by the customers, and thus no hacking required. I agree, that is safer than the I-phone method, where Apple forces you to hack your device to get the same functionality.
Obviously this is just a straw man by apple, they want to protect their income stream with full application control, by saying in affect "but what about the hackers who go to far? we must treat all hackers the same, to stop the terrorists.".
I don't think DRM is required to be able to "deny access to ... Whenever they want" That's the feature of a device with a constant network connection that's not controlled by the customer. I guess DRM lets them get away with it, because they are a "monopoly with the patents" and DRM allows them to only sell their content to the kindle (and visa a versa), thus keeping the market closed to competitors on either hardware or content (competitors have to be big enough to do both hardware and software simultaneously, and pay royalties at the same time.)
If the body armor does stop it, they'll be flat on their backs regardless.
conservation of energy does mean that it won't gain energy in flight, so it will not impact with any more energy than what the gun put into the shooter first (except for a recoiless, or mounted gun.) With a person running at you, unless they are too light to shoot the same load without being knocked on their ass, the bullet wont either. So yeah unleash a double barrel 10 gauge and you will both be sitting on you asses, assuming both hit the target. Your going to want something with penetration (small caliber) if worried about body armored entry.
My choice would be something like a hollow point, specifically designed to prevent a second hit, it may go through the wall, but not likely a person, and will likely be non lethal at that point.
A ballistic tip, or a black talon load should be better at getting through the jacket, and not having any next room, or next person issues either.