Still beats having separate passwords (and account management) for external services. As we've seen countless times, even simple user/pass logon systems are compromised thanks to sloppy configuration.
I'll find work that will pay me sufficiently, but I will not demand that society grant me a monopoly on everything I create so I can monetize it.
Let me qualify that a little bit. I write software for fun, but I do make money by selling it. Do I think I am entitled to that money? At the very least it is a reason for me to publish my software. And I am certainly not advocating that we do away with copyright altogether; a mechanism that allows authors to make money is beneficial to both authors and society, and that was the spirit behind the original notion of copyright. But I also accept that once the software is out there, I cannot excert ownership over every single instance in existence, and I do not get to dictate every single aspect of what I deem to be acceptable use. That level of control is of no benefit to society, and should be removed from current copyright laws. If I do not agree with those terms, I can opt not to publish, or try and protect my software with DRM.
If I sell my software in Europe and many people were making illegal copies, I'd go after them (if it were economically feasible). But only to make them pay for a copy, not to bankrupt them to "make an example out of them" or "send a message to pirates". If a pirate is caught, that's what the author is entitled to: the price of one copy. If I choose not to sell my software in Belgium because I don't like them and decide to be a dick about it, and someone there obtains a copy of my software illegally, tough luck... for me. Same if I decide not to sell my software in Iraq for fear it will be misused by the government. Same if I choose to use a reseller who sells only a limited amount of copies in order to jack up the price.
In other words: piracy only deprives the author of a sale if a legal sale were actually possible at reasonable terms. If not, I see no moral objection for someone obtaining the work by other means. And that has actually been the official position of the Dutch legislature for a good while: piracy was not actively prosecuted in cases where no legal alternative existed.
Why do publishers feel they are entitled to make money off published works? For much of our history, they didn't. If you had permission, not from the author of a book but from the owner of a physical copy of it, to borrow a published work, no one was stopping you from making a copy. And no one thought the worse of you for doing so: after all, no one was being deprived of anything by your actions. What stopped widespread copying was the effort and cost involved in making the copy, not lack of the author's consent.
At some point society decided that it was a good idea to grant authors an artificial and temporary monopoly on their works so that they could make a profit from them, encouraging them to produce and publish more works. With the goal of enriching society, not the authors. So when these authors and publishers abuse their monopoly and create an artificial scarcity to maximize their profits at the expense of availability of their works, you could say that they are not upholding their end of the deal. Except that this deal got rewritten many, many times with nothing but the interests of the publishers in mind.
And that is why some people feel they are "entitled" to break the law and freely avail themselves of this content. Not because they don't want to pay but because it is not available to them in an agreeable timeframe or format through legal channels. It is high time that society steps up and holds publishers to their end of the deal.
Yes, parents have such responsibility, and these days you can set a parental lock on devices as well (at least on iPhones / iPads, not sure about others). But the ruling indicates that the warning about in-app purchases was not sufficiently prominent (or even present at all), leading parents to believe that their children were playing completely free games thus requiring no unlinking of CC info or parental supervision, where in fact there was a potential (hidden) charge. Without knowing the details of the in app purchase warning or the devices in this case, it's hard to say if the parents should have been more careful, or if the paintiffs have a point.
Bureaucracies are not often a very efficient way of performing work, or even organizing it. What bureaucracies do is formalize and standardize business administration procedures, thereby making it easier to manage work... but that is not the same thing as efficiency! Usually it results in predictable mediocrity.
That's not an "iron law" though, at least I don't think so. Standardizing business processes in itself is a good thing, however I think we are not (yet) very good at designing those business processes and promote the right way to use them.
If some a-hole cuts me off on purpose or does a nice little brake check, I might be much better off in a self-driving car. Although there is some satisfaction in hitting an idiot stomping the brakes om purpose, as long as I can walk away from the collision and the dashcam is running... If they still believe the myth that a rear-ending driver is always at fault, they are in for a rude awakening.
Then I'm wondering why MS bought Xamarin... Xamarin is an environment that lets you develop chross-platform apps for iPhone, Android, OSX, and Windows phones using C# /.Net and Visual Studio. I can imagine that MS bought them in order to get more app builders to target Windows phones, since with Xamarin you basically get to do that for only a little extra effort.
By the way, I've been porting a fairly complex app to Xamarin for the past 3 months, and it's a wonderful environment compared to Objective-C (don't know how it compares to Swift though). Compared to Android's Java environment it's pure heaven. C# is just so much better (and I am no C# guy by trade, used to do Objective-C and C++).
The premise of that movie was pretty interesting. Unfortunately when we watched it, we started a drinking game where we'd take a drink (alcoholic of course) whenever they used a time-related metaphore or turn of phrase. We passed out 30 minutes in.
People don't want airplanes. The market has proved this, because you can't even fit 2 passengers into that stupid contraption those Wright guys built.
Virtual reality and augmented reality are in their infancy. What people played with in the 80s was a mock-up of a prototype of a proof of concept, and the fact that people didn't buy into it en masse proves nothing. What is happening now is that the technology is (almost) ready. Many people compare VR to 3D TV; a flawed analogy as 3D TV suffers from fundamental optical limitations that will always make it inferior to cinematic 3D (which *has* taken off). Instead, compare it to the smart phone, specifically to the iPhone. Revolutionary tech and new ideas? No... existing tech and existing ideas brought together for the first time in a package that appealed to the masses.
The same is happening to VR. People didn't reject VR because they didn't buy into the idea, but because it was far too impractical, expensive, and of low quality. That is changing fast. It's not going to replace televisions; no family wants to sit with a pod on their head for 2 hours watching a movie, but it is set to become a game-changer in gaming and telepresence. This tech (augmented reality) has even wider applications; what these guys are doing is what Glass should have been. Again, it's not going to be something that appeals to anyone until it becomes wearable. Give it 5 years. And even then it's not going to have a wide appeal... but the market is there already.
What are these crippling debts? Two things come to mind: student loans and mortgages. A typical mortgage runs 25-30 years and the monthly payments have repayment of the debt already factored in (if you have any annuitary or lineair mortgage), and according to the WSJ, US student loans are on average $35k. That's a lot, and alarmingly higher than the average of only a decade ago, but certainly not something that you cannot repay in a reasonable time frame.
Not sure how it is in the US, but one problem here is that it is becoming harder for young people to secure a mortgage, even if they have a decent income. That means they have to rent, which is relatively expensive, and instead of building equity they'll be paying a landlord.
The future used to be better. Technological advances, new ships, planes, rockets, having breakfast on the moon, visiting other worlds, and meeting friendly aliens. These days our outlook on the future is dismal: rogue technology, superviruses, epic natural disasters and global warming, armageddon, fascist corporation-run states and zombies. What happened?
It's had to please everyone but they did a decent job trying. At the time, the owner of the local movie theatre commented that "Titanic" had brought back families to the cinema, grandparents taking their grandchildren to see a movie; something that had somehow died out in the 10 years prior.
It's not (only) about getting more money for the EU or member states' governments. It's also about making them pay their "fair share" so others will have to pay less.
Now in almost any context I abhor that phrase "fair share", usually there is nothing fair about it. But in this case we're also talking about fair competition. Evading taxes is an expensive game that requires expert knowledge and a fair amount of money to set everything up, but it is also something that benefits enormously from economies of scale: it may cost $5.000 to hide $10.000 in profits, but only $50.000 to hide $1 billion. That puts tax evasion out of reach of small and medium enterprises, who will have an even harder time competing with the multinational giants if they are forced to pay the taxes thet the big boys can evade.
Curtailing legal gun ownership is not going to make guns disappear from the hands of criminals overnight, but you have to start somewhere. The fact that she is asking (or trying to force) citizens to make the first move, yet has not dismissed her own armed guard (or tore up the CCW permit that she has apparently) does seem to make her a hypocrite; she certainly isn't leading by example here. She might claim that she hasn't given up her guard because there are no strict gun-control laws yet, and that she will dismiss them (or at least their firearms) when such a law goes through, but that would be nothing more than asinine posturing.
As an intermediate solution that requires less work and knowledge, go with a solution that does not require the cloud. This can be proprietary or open, for example there are loads of devices available for Zigbee and Z-wave, and there are a few hubs for these standards that do not require the cloud. They will continue to work even if the company changes tack or goes under. Just be very careful with firmware upgrades (remember Philips Hue?), and preferably choose a solution that lets you roll back to older firmware. Also be careful with solutions that require smartphone apps: if you get a new phone, that app you relied on may suddenly be no longer there.
What goes for IoT goes for a lot of other things too: do NOT use the cloud unless you absolutely have to... or when you feel the convenience is worth the risks. And the risks go beyond continuity, there's privacy and security to consider as well.
That's fair enough. But if your software shows me an FBI warning for 15 seconds every time I start it, has embedded ads that cannot be skipped, only runs on certain kinds of computers "because piracy", and is not available in some countries or priced very differently there for arbitrary (not legal) reasons, then it's off to the Pirate bay for a copy that has all those stupid restrictions removed. Copyright is a privilege granted by society, and it's high time that society starts setting a few reasonable conditions of its own. Fair use, format shifting and ripping, and reasonable availability are just a few.
As far as I know, most countries have banned simulated kiddie porn, probably because it was too easy to apply some filter to the material and then claim that "it's not real" But rape games and killing simulators are not banned here; most of Europe is pretty liberal when it comes to games.
And kids being imprisoned for building a school level in an FPS? That's ridiculous. Assuming you're from the US, I can imagine bully cops and idiot panicky teachers causing a student to be arrested for such a thing... and I can also imagine the police and prosecutors, being utterly incapable and unwilling to ever admit any mistake, getting the student to convicted on some technicality or pushing him into a plea bargain. But has any student ever been convicted specifically for building a school level in an FPS?
Exactly. And what about that "always on" deal? I can understand that there is a process running to switch stuff over to the Rift when you put it on, but why on earth is that process collecting data and sending it home to the mothership?
Common people were not denied access to copies because the works were protected, but because they could not afford to have a copy made. Copying was labor-intensive and expensive, which is one of the reasons that made books rare. Not any form of copyright. For the rest, if you cannot distinguish between a physical object that cannot be taken without the owner being deprived of it and cannot be copied free of cost, and a virtual intellectual work that can be copied at no cost to anyone or a small sum from the person who wants the copy without depriving the owner of the original of anything, then you have no business discussing these matters. Piracy is not theft. It may be illegal, it may even be immoral, but it is not theft. Not even close.
Under the current interpretation of copyright I am not, unless I submit to their onerous terms. But by the same token, why are they entitled to have their work protected when it can be freely copied with no loss or downside to anyone, except a potential lost sale? Sure, authors should be able to benefit from their work, but there is no reason why they or their publishers are the sole authors of the terms of their temporary monopoly. If they don't want me to copy it, they can choose to not publish the content or add whatever DRM they think will work. But for much of human history, free copies have been the norm.
You paid for the book but they get to say how, when and how often you can read it. Something like that. Nope, that dog won't hunt. Now I have 4 choices: submit to their consumer rights raping terms, don't buy their content, pirate it, or buy it and get a pirated copy I can do what the hell I want with. I prefer the last choice, but... they will still ream me in court if they catch me, and pirating without buying hopefully convinces or forces them to change their business model. Same as the music inductry; they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new century, and music can now be had at reasonable prices and terms. Good for them... and I haven't pirated music in the last decade or so, I am happy to pay for it on the terms they offer.
Copyright is not a natural right, it is a privilege granted by society for the benefit of society.
At the same time there is a consensus that Superluminal communication (faster-than-light) is considered impossible.
It has been proven (within our understanding of physics) that being able to send messages faster than light allows you, between certain weird reference frames, to send a message back in time, breaking causality. But I'm not sure how fundamental causality is to our physics models, or if our models actually allow for exceptions.
Sort of similar to the crap about time paradoxes and killing your own father. There is no paradox, and killing your father won't make you slowly fade out like in the movies. Cause precedes effect; you kill your dad but there is nothing in the past to cause that instance of "you" to disappear; the cause of you appearing in the past lies in the future and removing it doesn't affect that event. Unless time has a garbage collector to sweep up any dangling pointers like yourself. Anyway, I better go and have another cup of coffee.
What exactly are the typical velocity differences in any particular orbit? Anything in the same circular orbit would have roughly the same velocity. Stuff like chips of paint breaking off would remain in the same orbit as well. Wouldn't it take something being knocked into an elliptical orbit to produce substantial differences in velocity on intersecting orbits?
Slashdot Mirror
Still beats having separate passwords (and account management) for external services. As we've seen countless times, even simple user/pass logon systems are compromised thanks to sloppy configuration.
I'll find work that will pay me sufficiently, but I will not demand that society grant me a monopoly on everything I create so I can monetize it.
Let me qualify that a little bit. I write software for fun, but I do make money by selling it. Do I think I am entitled to that money? At the very least it is a reason for me to publish my software. And I am certainly not advocating that we do away with copyright altogether; a mechanism that allows authors to make money is beneficial to both authors and society, and that was the spirit behind the original notion of copyright. But I also accept that once the software is out there, I cannot excert ownership over every single instance in existence, and I do not get to dictate every single aspect of what I deem to be acceptable use. That level of control is of no benefit to society, and should be removed from current copyright laws. If I do not agree with those terms, I can opt not to publish, or try and protect my software with DRM.
If I sell my software in Europe and many people were making illegal copies, I'd go after them (if it were economically feasible). But only to make them pay for a copy, not to bankrupt them to "make an example out of them" or "send a message to pirates". If a pirate is caught, that's what the author is entitled to: the price of one copy. If I choose not to sell my software in Belgium because I don't like them and decide to be a dick about it, and someone there obtains a copy of my software illegally, tough luck... for me. Same if I decide not to sell my software in Iraq for fear it will be misused by the government. Same if I choose to use a reseller who sells only a limited amount of copies in order to jack up the price.
In other words: piracy only deprives the author of a sale if a legal sale were actually possible at reasonable terms. If not, I see no moral objection for someone obtaining the work by other means. And that has actually been the official position of the Dutch legislature for a good while: piracy was not actively prosecuted in cases where no legal alternative existed.
Why do publishers feel they are entitled to make money off published works? For much of our history, they didn't. If you had permission, not from the author of a book but from the owner of a physical copy of it, to borrow a published work, no one was stopping you from making a copy. And no one thought the worse of you for doing so: after all, no one was being deprived of anything by your actions. What stopped widespread copying was the effort and cost involved in making the copy, not lack of the author's consent.
At some point society decided that it was a good idea to grant authors an artificial and temporary monopoly on their works so that they could make a profit from them, encouraging them to produce and publish more works. With the goal of enriching society, not the authors. So when these authors and publishers abuse their monopoly and create an artificial scarcity to maximize their profits at the expense of availability of their works, you could say that they are not upholding their end of the deal. Except that this deal got rewritten many, many times with nothing but the interests of the publishers in mind.
And that is why some people feel they are "entitled" to break the law and freely avail themselves of this content. Not because they don't want to pay but because it is not available to them in an agreeable timeframe or format through legal channels. It is high time that society steps up and holds publishers to their end of the deal.
Yes, parents have such responsibility, and these days you can set a parental lock on devices as well (at least on iPhones / iPads, not sure about others). But the ruling indicates that the warning about in-app purchases was not sufficiently prominent (or even present at all), leading parents to believe that their children were playing completely free games thus requiring no unlinking of CC info or parental supervision, where in fact there was a potential (hidden) charge. Without knowing the details of the in app purchase warning or the devices in this case, it's hard to say if the parents should have been more careful, or if the paintiffs have a point.
Bureaucracies are not often a very efficient way of performing work, or even organizing it. What bureaucracies do is formalize and standardize business administration procedures, thereby making it easier to manage work... but that is not the same thing as efficiency! Usually it results in predictable mediocrity.
That's not an "iron law" though, at least I don't think so. Standardizing business processes in itself is a good thing, however I think we are not (yet) very good at designing those business processes and promote the right way to use them.
Over here there's plenty of case law placing part or even all of the blame on the guy doing the braking, based on witness reports or dashcam footage.
The "on purpose" part refers to the guy doing the brake check, not to me piling into him.
If some a-hole cuts me off on purpose or does a nice little brake check, I might be much better off in a self-driving car. Although there is some satisfaction in hitting an idiot stomping the brakes om purpose, as long as I can walk away from the collision and the dashcam is running... If they still believe the myth that a rear-ending driver is always at fault, they are in for a rude awakening.
Why would driverless cars get trolled more?
Then I'm wondering why MS bought Xamarin... Xamarin is an environment that lets you develop chross-platform apps for iPhone, Android, OSX, and Windows phones using C# / .Net and Visual Studio. I can imagine that MS bought them in order to get more app builders to target Windows phones, since with Xamarin you basically get to do that for only a little extra effort.
By the way, I've been porting a fairly complex app to Xamarin for the past 3 months, and it's a wonderful environment compared to Objective-C (don't know how it compares to Swift though). Compared to Android's Java environment it's pure heaven. C# is just so much better (and I am no C# guy by trade, used to do Objective-C and C++).
The premise of that movie was pretty interesting. Unfortunately when we watched it, we started a drinking game where we'd take a drink (alcoholic of course) whenever they used a time-related metaphore or turn of phrase. We passed out 30 minutes in.
People don't want airplanes. The market has proved this, because you can't even fit 2 passengers into that stupid contraption those Wright guys built.
Virtual reality and augmented reality are in their infancy. What people played with in the 80s was a mock-up of a prototype of a proof of concept, and the fact that people didn't buy into it en masse proves nothing. What is happening now is that the technology is (almost) ready. Many people compare VR to 3D TV; a flawed analogy as 3D TV suffers from fundamental optical limitations that will always make it inferior to cinematic 3D (which *has* taken off). Instead, compare it to the smart phone, specifically to the iPhone. Revolutionary tech and new ideas? No... existing tech and existing ideas brought together for the first time in a package that appealed to the masses.
The same is happening to VR. People didn't reject VR because they didn't buy into the idea, but because it was far too impractical, expensive, and of low quality. That is changing fast. It's not going to replace televisions; no family wants to sit with a pod on their head for 2 hours watching a movie, but it is set to become a game-changer in gaming and telepresence. This tech (augmented reality) has even wider applications; what these guys are doing is what Glass should have been. Again, it's not going to be something that appeals to anyone until it becomes wearable. Give it 5 years. And even then it's not going to have a wide appeal... but the market is there already.
What are these crippling debts? Two things come to mind: student loans and mortgages. A typical mortgage runs 25-30 years and the monthly payments have repayment of the debt already factored in (if you have any annuitary or lineair mortgage), and according to the WSJ, US student loans are on average $35k. That's a lot, and alarmingly higher than the average of only a decade ago, but certainly not something that you cannot repay in a reasonable time frame.
Not sure how it is in the US, but one problem here is that it is becoming harder for young people to secure a mortgage, even if they have a decent income. That means they have to rent, which is relatively expensive, and instead of building equity they'll be paying a landlord.
The future used to be better. Technological advances, new ships, planes, rockets, having breakfast on the moon, visiting other worlds, and meeting friendly aliens. These days our outlook on the future is dismal: rogue technology, superviruses, epic natural disasters and global warming, armageddon, fascist corporation-run states and zombies. What happened?
It's had to please everyone but they did a decent job trying. At the time, the owner of the local movie theatre commented that "Titanic" had brought back families to the cinema, grandparents taking their grandchildren to see a movie; something that had somehow died out in the 10 years prior.
It's not (only) about getting more money for the EU or member states' governments. It's also about making them pay their "fair share" so others will have to pay less.
Now in almost any context I abhor that phrase "fair share", usually there is nothing fair about it. But in this case we're also talking about fair competition. Evading taxes is an expensive game that requires expert knowledge and a fair amount of money to set everything up, but it is also something that benefits enormously from economies of scale: it may cost $5.000 to hide $10.000 in profits, but only $50.000 to hide $1 billion. That puts tax evasion out of reach of small and medium enterprises, who will have an even harder time competing with the multinational giants if they are forced to pay the taxes thet the big boys can evade.
Curtailing legal gun ownership is not going to make guns disappear from the hands of criminals overnight, but you have to start somewhere. The fact that she is asking (or trying to force) citizens to make the first move, yet has not dismissed her own armed guard (or tore up the CCW permit that she has apparently) does seem to make her a hypocrite; she certainly isn't leading by example here. She might claim that she hasn't given up her guard because there are no strict gun-control laws yet, and that she will dismiss them (or at least their firearms) when such a law goes through, but that would be nothing more than asinine posturing.
As an intermediate solution that requires less work and knowledge, go with a solution that does not require the cloud. This can be proprietary or open, for example there are loads of devices available for Zigbee and Z-wave, and there are a few hubs for these standards that do not require the cloud. They will continue to work even if the company changes tack or goes under. Just be very careful with firmware upgrades (remember Philips Hue?), and preferably choose a solution that lets you roll back to older firmware. Also be careful with solutions that require smartphone apps: if you get a new phone, that app you relied on may suddenly be no longer there.
What goes for IoT goes for a lot of other things too: do NOT use the cloud unless you absolutely have to... or when you feel the convenience is worth the risks. And the risks go beyond continuity, there's privacy and security to consider as well.
That's fair enough. But if your software shows me an FBI warning for 15 seconds every time I start it, has embedded ads that cannot be skipped, only runs on certain kinds of computers "because piracy", and is not available in some countries or priced very differently there for arbitrary (not legal) reasons, then it's off to the Pirate bay for a copy that has all those stupid restrictions removed. Copyright is a privilege granted by society, and it's high time that society starts setting a few reasonable conditions of its own. Fair use, format shifting and ripping, and reasonable availability are just a few.
As far as I know, most countries have banned simulated kiddie porn, probably because it was too easy to apply some filter to the material and then claim that "it's not real" But rape games and killing simulators are not banned here; most of Europe is pretty liberal when it comes to games.
And kids being imprisoned for building a school level in an FPS? That's ridiculous. Assuming you're from the US, I can imagine bully cops and idiot panicky teachers causing a student to be arrested for such a thing... and I can also imagine the police and prosecutors, being utterly incapable and unwilling to ever admit any mistake, getting the student to convicted on some technicality or pushing him into a plea bargain. But has any student ever been convicted specifically for building a school level in an FPS?
Exactly. And what about that "always on" deal? I can understand that there is a process running to switch stuff over to the Rift when you put it on, but why on earth is that process collecting data and sending it home to the mothership?
Common people were not denied access to copies because the works were protected, but because they could not afford to have a copy made. Copying was labor-intensive and expensive, which is one of the reasons that made books rare. Not any form of copyright. For the rest, if you cannot distinguish between a physical object that cannot be taken without the owner being deprived of it and cannot be copied free of cost, and a virtual intellectual work that can be copied at no cost to anyone or a small sum from the person who wants the copy without depriving the owner of the original of anything, then you have no business discussing these matters. Piracy is not theft. It may be illegal, it may even be immoral, but it is not theft. Not even close.
Under the current interpretation of copyright I am not, unless I submit to their onerous terms. But by the same token, why are they entitled to have their work protected when it can be freely copied with no loss or downside to anyone, except a potential lost sale? Sure, authors should be able to benefit from their work, but there is no reason why they or their publishers are the sole authors of the terms of their temporary monopoly. If they don't want me to copy it, they can choose to not publish the content or add whatever DRM they think will work. But for much of human history, free copies have been the norm.
You paid for the book but they get to say how, when and how often you can read it. Something like that. Nope, that dog won't hunt. Now I have 4 choices: submit to their consumer rights raping terms, don't buy their content, pirate it, or buy it and get a pirated copy I can do what the hell I want with. I prefer the last choice, but... they will still ream me in court if they catch me, and pirating without buying hopefully convinces or forces them to change their business model. Same as the music inductry; they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new century, and music can now be had at reasonable prices and terms. Good for them... and I haven't pirated music in the last decade or so, I am happy to pay for it on the terms they offer.
Copyright is not a natural right, it is a privilege granted by society for the benefit of society.
At the same time there is a consensus that Superluminal communication (faster-than-light) is considered impossible.
It has been proven (within our understanding of physics) that being able to send messages faster than light allows you, between certain weird reference frames, to send a message back in time, breaking causality. But I'm not sure how fundamental causality is to our physics models, or if our models actually allow for exceptions.
Sort of similar to the crap about time paradoxes and killing your own father. There is no paradox, and killing your father won't make you slowly fade out like in the movies. Cause precedes effect; you kill your dad but there is nothing in the past to cause that instance of "you" to disappear; the cause of you appearing in the past lies in the future and removing it doesn't affect that event. Unless time has a garbage collector to sweep up any dangling pointers like yourself. Anyway, I better go and have another cup of coffee.
What exactly are the typical velocity differences in any particular orbit? Anything in the same circular orbit would have roughly the same velocity. Stuff like chips of paint breaking off would remain in the same orbit as well. Wouldn't it take something being knocked into an elliptical orbit to produce substantial differences in velocity on intersecting orbits?