Some kid got some from a welding supply house for $10 per thermos bottle of it ( he had to bring his own thermos ). I would suggest saying it's 'for your kid's science fair project' people are more willing to sell you odd items in the name of a kid's education...
Big tires would make the EDR think he was going slower than he actually was. Little tires would make the EDR think he was going topo fast. My friend put some smaller tires on his car, but took them off as the odometer was going up crazy fast....
Back in the olde days of 007, he had a triangle with one licence plate attached to each face that rotated whenever he wanted to change plates - that would be nice! But many cars don't have the spot to put the rotating plate mechanism ( actially I've never owned a car that had a good place to put the plate changer system, or else I would have installed one probably -- you know in case I wanted to commit a crime, just steal a plate, attach it, commit the crime, peel out change the plate to my real one, and be off scott free.
I think that LCD idea has potential to be an automatic plate changer, and could work aside the 'oil slick'. It would be better thant he rotating triangle because you could have a pad of buttons near the console with a variety of road rage slogans like - 'the bird' 'get off my ass' 'jerk' 'I have a gun' etc.
I think most of the time, a cop at that light would not have issued you a ticket, but just a warning. I think warnings can be quite effective at deterring bad driving - especially the times when you might not be paying attention and let your speed creep up too much or go through a yellow light that turns red. After getting a warning, I at least am more careful - especially in the area that I recieved the warning knowing that the cop is probably in the area regularly and will ticket me this time since he already gave the warning. Cameras etc linked to automailer computers don't take into account the human factor ( for instance 0.3 seconds after turning is not intentional red light running, it's yellow light duration misestimation )
But I do find some of it. I mean I search for the term A55M0NKEY which must not turn up too often unless it was me, and the entire first page of google hits is my slashdot stuff....
I think it depends on the actual wording of the license. If the license says that IBM can do X Y and Z with Unix in perpituity then a seperate copyright violation ( Q = allegedly putting unix code into linux ) may have nothing to do with the license. By default IBM is not allowed to do that, so the license probably does not mention that restriction. The license is probably merely a 'bill of rights' for IBM ( payed for of course ).
That will tell you how to do a thorough and professional patent search yourself? I'd hate to go throught the pain of independently inventing and building something only to find out I have to pay the leach that patented it later....
Often testing every possible case is intractible ( read impossible ) because there are just too many cases. It is not hard to imagine a program with more cases to test than there are atoms in the universe. The ONLY way to have software that is not buggy is to let it evolve. That means they need a 'spaceshipOS' and reusable 'spaceshipComponents' that will fail in the real world, and will be fixed and reused ( hopefully without failing this time. ) The price for this kind of testing is crashed spaceships and dead astronaughts. If a peice of medical equipment fails then someone prolly dies. It is fixed and hopefully nobody else dies from that failure. But if the piece of equipment saves 10000 people per year and 4 die because of it's software bugs then it's worth it. And next year maybe only 3 will die. But even if improvements/additions to that system introduce more bugs and cause more deaths, if those improvements saved more lives than they cost they were worth it.
One of the reasons we have a judicial system is to provide common sence like this. No jury or judge would penalize this guy because it would be patently stupid to. So the effort to comply with the law is legally important because a court is not a computer that executes legal code and will just do exactly what it is told. It is a full fledged and empowered branch of government made up of people.
The intent of throwing something away is that it will end up crushed into little cubes and placed in a landfill. That that did not happen does not make the guy who threw them out liable. The person made a reasonable effort to comply with the law. As long as the guy doesn't put a 'Free CDs' sign out by his trash he can reasonably expect that any CDs will end up in the dump. Now the dump might allow dump picking. If it does, then it has no idea that there are playable CDs in it's waste stream. Common sence would imply that a usable CD is not trash and hence would not be in the waste stream not being waste. ( Backstreet Boys & Brittanny Spears notwithstanding )
And picking up trash is not a crime. ( unless there is a no dump picking sign )
You would not be responsible to throw out a bunch of old dynamite, or batteries containing cadmium or lead, but a CD won't hurt anyone. The dumpster divers did not break a law, the guy who throws the CD out did not break the law, but the copyright holder lost money. Too bad - the law does not protect them in this case.
Open data laws. If you sell something to me, it should be readable and undestandable by me. If the program is a compiled one, I should get the source because precompiled code would be illegally encrypted. No more chips with codes designed to prevent me from using my property in the way I want to. No more DMCA because selling things that need to be protected by the DMCA would be illegal.
Here is an idea: At the next big press conference a Donald Rumsfeld type gives, one where there is alot of suspense and the ratings are high, play a loud 5hz Brown Note. Not only would the whole room shit themselves, but since the press conference is live, the Brown Note would be broadcast to all the teeming millions watching who would also shit themselves.
Oh the humanity!
Unless of course - puts pinky to mouth - I get ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Dude foam weapons are SOOO Fun! When we were kids we wrapped foam around PVC pipes w/duct tape. We had this old couch cushion and used the whole thing to wrap around a 'Bubba Clubba' Holy crap! When that sucker smacked upsid yer head you saw stars!
GPS's don't always work. Sometimes they can't get a signal, or you forgot to bring extra batteries. Hiding a geocache way off the trail would mean that someone would need a GPS to find the trail again. Batteries die or GPS gets dropped down a cliff, hiker is lost, and dies of cold to become the winter fat layer of a bear.
No. you can have a big humungous capsule with the ability to carry as much cargo FROM space as the shuttle. There is nothing in the concept of capsules that makes them inferior to a plane for reentry. And they can be made reusable too.
Even if spaceplanes were an inherently better way to retrieve items from space, the space shittle is not able to reach the vast majority of objects that one might be interested in retrieving. Not only is it limited to Low Earth Orbit, but it is also limited to an eastward bound east-west orbit because it requires the extra 1000mph that the earth's rotation gives it to reach orbit. It can not travel westward, northward or southward.
I am suprised they had the foresight to launch the Hubble into an orbit reachable by the shuttle. That is the only true shuttle success story, though I wonder how much it would have cost to just launch the copy of the hubble that probably exists somewhere. ( NASA ususally builds two or three of everything for spare parts / redundancy since the major cost is not in materials but design and testing ) I wonder if readying and launching the copy would cost less than the 500 million dollars the repair mission cost.
In the end, rockets can not be the way to get into space because although they are much 10 times less expensive than shuttle launches ( even non-reusable rockets ) and are probably safer they are still very expensive.
As has been said many times before, the shuttle program should be scrapped, and the money should go to researching cheaper ways to get into space though they may be unproven and risky. Things like lightcraft ( there's a good sciam.com article search for sciam.com and lightcraft if this link does not work ) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005873 1-ED4B-1CB8-B4A8809EC588EEDF and space elevators seem the most promising to me I applaud NASA's investigation into the Podkletnov effect though he seems to be a crackpot. High risk research with high probability of failure is the only way to truly advance space travel. There are very few incremental improvements to rocket technology that can be made. Even scramjets do not hold the promise of making a trip to space as routine as a trip accross the ocean which should be the ultimate goal of advancing space flight.
We would know if either of the approaches had promise in a couple of years if they could split the current funding of the space shuttle between them. If one did turn out to be possible, we'd be using it regularly in ten years for routine business with continued funding. Much of the shuttle's current funding should go into pure research in areas of science that hold promise for making cheap space travel possible.
Commercialization of space should be a high priority. Telecommunications and weather sattelites are fine and dandy but do not even scratch the tip the potential wealth of space should getting there become cheap.
The ISS should also be scrapped and it's funds redirected toward both space exploration via telescopes and probes, and towards researching cheap ways to get into space. We know that zero G is bad for people. We know in general how to get around it - i.e. by having a space station that spins. Such a space station is too expensive and useless to exist unless getting to space is cheap. There is no need for a space hotel/gas station if there is no traffic on the road to space! All the zero G experiments that were worth the money to perform have been performed, and while there is value in repeating the results of experiments it is not worth billions of dollars.
Lets put zero G experiments on hold until they are cheap enough to be practical. Let's make access to space cheap so the private sector can figure out how to build a spinning space station that does not wobble. Let's let mining companies explore the moon/asteroids for resources.
Then NASA can work on breaking the lightspeed barrier...
Slashdot Mirror
What will making quark gluon plasma tell us? Will we be able to make chickens without feathers or something?
Some kid got some from a welding supply house for $10 per thermos bottle of it ( he had to bring his own thermos ). I would suggest saying it's 'for your kid's science fair project' people are more willing to sell you odd items in the name of a kid's education...
Big tires would make the EDR think he was going slower than he actually was. Little tires would make the EDR think he was going topo fast. My friend put some smaller tires on his car, but took them off as the odometer was going up crazy fast....
I think that LCD idea has potential to be an automatic plate changer, and could work aside the 'oil slick'. It would be better thant he rotating triangle because you could have a pad of buttons near the console with a variety of road rage slogans like - 'the bird' 'get off my ass' 'jerk' 'I have a gun' etc.
I think most of the time, a cop at that light would not have issued you a ticket, but just a warning. I think warnings can be quite effective at deterring bad driving - especially the times when you might not be paying attention and let your speed creep up too much or go through a yellow light that turns red. After getting a warning, I at least am more careful - especially in the area that I recieved the warning knowing that the cop is probably in the area regularly and will ticket me this time since he already gave the warning. Cameras etc linked to automailer computers don't take into account the human factor ( for instance 0.3 seconds after turning is not intentional red light running, it's yellow light duration misestimation )
But I do find some of it. I mean I search for the term A55M0NKEY which must not turn up too often unless it was me, and the entire first page of google hits is my slashdot stuff....
So much stronger than steel, I wonder if you could cut vegetables or cheeze with a taught piece. Or necks.....
I'll bet he won't even NEED to use the Chewbacca defense on this one!
I think it depends on the actual wording of the license. If the license says that IBM can do X Y and Z with Unix in perpituity then a seperate copyright violation ( Q = allegedly putting unix code into linux ) may have nothing to do with the license. By default IBM is not allowed to do that, so the license probably does not mention that restriction. The license is probably merely a 'bill of rights' for IBM ( payed for of course ).
That will tell you how to do a thorough and professional patent search yourself? I'd hate to go throught the pain of independently inventing and building something only to find out I have to pay the leach that patented it later....
Wear uranium underwear!
Often testing every possible case is intractible ( read impossible ) because there are just too many cases. It is not hard to imagine a program with more cases to test than there are atoms in the universe.
The ONLY way to have software that is not buggy is to let it evolve. That means they need a 'spaceshipOS' and reusable 'spaceshipComponents' that will fail in the real world, and will be fixed and reused ( hopefully without failing this time. ) The price for this kind of testing is crashed spaceships and dead astronaughts. If a peice of medical equipment fails then someone prolly dies. It is fixed and hopefully nobody else dies from that failure. But if the piece of equipment saves 10000 people per year and 4 die because of it's software bugs then it's worth it. And next year maybe only 3 will die. But even if improvements/additions to that system introduce more bugs and cause more deaths, if those improvements saved more lives than they cost they were worth it.
Err.. All your maths are belong to us?
One of the reasons we have a judicial system is to provide common sence like this. No jury or judge would penalize this guy because it would be patently stupid to. So the effort to comply with the law is legally important because a court is not a computer that executes legal code and will just do exactly what it is told. It is a full fledged and empowered branch of government made up of people.
The intent of throwing something away is that it will end up crushed into little cubes and placed in a landfill. That that did not happen does not make the guy who threw them out liable. The person made a reasonable effort to comply with the law. As long as the guy doesn't put a 'Free CDs' sign out by his trash he can reasonably expect that any CDs will end up in the dump. Now the dump might allow dump picking. If it does, then it has no idea that there are playable CDs in it's waste stream. Common sence would imply that a usable CD is not trash and hence would not be in the waste stream not being waste. ( Backstreet Boys & Brittanny Spears notwithstanding )
You would not be responsible to throw out a bunch of old dynamite, or batteries containing cadmium or lead, but a CD won't hurt anyone. The dumpster divers did not break a law, the guy who throws the CD out did not break the law, but the copyright holder lost money. Too bad - the law does not protect them in this case.
Open data laws. If you sell something to me, it should be readable and undestandable by me. If the program is a compiled one, I should get the source because precompiled code would be illegally encrypted. No more chips with codes designed to prevent me from using my property in the way I want to. No more DMCA because selling things that need to be protected by the DMCA would be illegal.
Either that or if Pictures Etc MUST be shown use HTML. PDF sux 'cause you can't cut and paste pics and text as easily and you need a special reader.
I mean they're so heavy and bready and hard and gross. Geez scones suck.
Oh the humanity!
Unless of course - puts pinky to mouth - I get ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Dude foam weapons are SOOO Fun! When we were kids we wrapped foam around PVC pipes w/duct tape. We had this old couch cushion and used the whole thing to wrap around a 'Bubba Clubba' Holy crap! When that sucker smacked upsid yer head you saw stars!
I thought the purpose of engineering was to make neet gizmos and toys.
That's probably a good idea: Roll a joint, and leave it in any geocache you find in exchange for one of the trinkets.
GPS's don't always work. Sometimes they can't get a signal, or you forgot to bring extra batteries. Hiding a geocache way off the trail would mean that someone would need a GPS to find the trail again. Batteries die or GPS gets dropped down a cliff, hiker is lost, and dies of cold to become the winter fat layer of a bear.
No. you can have a big humungous capsule with the ability to carry as much cargo FROM space as the shuttle. There is nothing in the concept of capsules that makes them inferior to a plane for reentry. And they can be made reusable too.
Even if spaceplanes were an inherently better way to retrieve items from space, the space shittle is not able to reach the vast majority of objects that one might be interested in retrieving. Not only is it limited to Low Earth Orbit, but it is also limited to an eastward bound east-west orbit because it requires the extra 1000mph that the earth's rotation gives it to reach orbit. It can not travel westward, northward or southward.
I am suprised they had the foresight to launch the Hubble into an orbit reachable by the shuttle. That is the only true shuttle success story, though I wonder how much it would have cost to just launch the copy of the hubble that probably exists somewhere. ( NASA ususally builds two or three of everything for spare parts / redundancy since the major cost is not in materials but design and testing ) I wonder if readying and launching the copy would cost less than the 500 million dollars the repair mission cost.
In the end, rockets can not be the way to get into space because although they are much 10 times less expensive than shuttle launches ( even non-reusable rockets ) and are probably safer they are still very expensive.
As has been said many times before, the shuttle program should be scrapped, and the money should go to researching cheaper ways to get into space though they may be unproven and risky. Things like lightcraft ( there's a good sciam.com article search for sciam.com and lightcraft if this link does not work ) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005873 1-ED4B-1CB8-B4A8809EC588EEDF and space elevators seem the most promising to me I applaud NASA's investigation into the Podkletnov effect though he seems to be a crackpot. High risk research with high probability of failure is the only way to truly advance space travel. There are very few incremental improvements to rocket technology that can be made. Even scramjets do not hold the promise of making a trip to space as routine as a trip accross the ocean which should be the ultimate goal of advancing space flight.
We would know if either of the approaches had promise in a couple of years if they could split the current funding of the space shuttle between them. If one did turn out to be possible, we'd be using it regularly in ten years for routine business with continued funding. Much of the shuttle's
current funding should go into pure research in areas of science that hold promise for making cheap space travel possible.
Commercialization of space should be a high priority. Telecommunications and weather sattelites are fine and dandy but do not even scratch the tip the potential wealth of space should getting there become cheap.
The ISS should also be scrapped and it's funds redirected toward both space exploration via telescopes and probes, and towards researching cheap ways to get into space. We know that zero G is bad for people. We know in general how to get around it - i.e. by having a space station that spins. Such a space station is too expensive and useless to exist unless getting to space is cheap. There is no need for a space hotel/gas station if there is no traffic on the road to space! All the zero G experiments that were worth the money to perform have been performed, and while there is value in repeating the results of experiments it is not worth billions of dollars.
Lets put zero G experiments on hold until they are cheap enough to be practical. Let's make access to space cheap so the private sector can figure out how to build a spinning space station that does not wobble. Let's let mining companies explore the moon/asteroids for resources.
Then NASA can work on breaking the lightspeed barrier...