The MIT "folding wings" car would solve all these problems:
The operating regimes are too different to make a good, semi-efficient, cross vehicle. Take a standard Cessna 172. About 750kg. Thats about the same as the SmartCar. Now bolt on foldable wings and other control surfaces, the supporting structure needed to hold all that, extra instrumentation...and you've added 500kg to that SmartCar. Or attack it the other way. How much would a 172 weigh if it needed 5mph bumpers, door beams, and a suspension/frame strong enough to handle a pothole at 60mph? Add in the drive mechanism to get power to the wheels. Oh, and the (strong/foolproof!)linkage needed for the foldable wings. It would end up a much larger aircraft. Where do you put those wings so they don't block the view when on the ground? Only place I can think of is on the roof.
The aircraft spends 99% of its operating life in the smooth, pothole-free, air. There is no need to haul around a useless heavy frame and suspension. A car spends ALL of its operating life on the very uneven ground. With all the bumps and dings that go with that. And no need to haul around unneeded flight control surfaces.
Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done as more than a toy? Not anytime soon.
Yes, I do understand that it is legal within their laws to do what they are doing. However, my take on it is this:
One guy tells another guy "Give me a dollar, and I'll give you permission to sell some other persons stuff. He did not tell me directly that this was OK, but that's too bad for him. This is within 'our' laws, so don't worry."
And to the artists/RIAA/whoever:
"We're going to distribute your works. Here is the deal we'll give you. If you don't like this particular amount, tough. We'll distribute it anyway."
If someone made a profit from your work, without your agreement, or any compensation to you except as under their terms...you wouldn't like it either.
standard disclaimer - The RIAA is a bunch of theives and needs to die a horrible death.
Why did the IFPI refuse royalties from ROMS? Could be many reasons. Maybe the terms were not to IFPI's liking, and ROMS would not budge. Maybe the leadership of the IFPI is getting personal kickbacks from ROMS/AllOfMP3 (above are purely fictional reasons). We don't know.
But my initial assertion still stands. If you don't have to (for whatever reason) pay the ultimate supplier, you can price anyone else out of business.
The trail of money from 'you' - AllOfMP3.com - ROMS...stops at ROMS.
What would you like them to do, start mailing cheques directly to the artists?
Sure. Why not? That exact scenario is promoted loudly in here.
Not fully decided yet, but even if that were the case...does any of that money trickle back to the actual copyright holder, be it the RIAA (gag,gag) or the artist? Apparently, no.
Don't get me wrong...the RIAA is evil and needs to die a horrible death. But paying some guy is Russia is even less beneficial to the artist than the RIAA is.
Why? Could you give them a naked box and a Vista DVD and have them get it up and running?
A) The box they bought already comes with Vista/XP. To change, the process needs to be easy. (I've given a bright 11 year old an XP CD and said 'go for it'. No problem)
B) Why isn't making the change easier an admirable goal?
how about this on the flip side: can I sue you because you're broadcasting your wifi into my house which potentially disrupts my wifi because it's on the same default channel using the same default ssid?
Instead, how about you come over and we talk about it like rational humans. As I would expect you to do if my music were too loud. I know I would. Getting the courts involved as a first step is silly.
Hell yes the bike analogy is flawed. As are most analogies. It was meant to illustrate the concept of "If it's not yours, the default thought should be 'don't fuck with it' ".
The subtleties of "stealing" wireless access, would, in my mind, require the owner to somehow make the user aware that their use was not acceptable before any charges could be brought.
I would think it should be the other way around. Do not use unless you know for sure that you are allowed. An SSID of "UseThisWiFi" or similar. A bicycle unattended in my front yard is not express permission for you to take it. A sign that says "Free bike" is.
Bollocks. Go visit the Netherlands. Or Seattle for that matter.
Neither of which are vaguely similar to Buffalo in the winter, or Houston in the summer.
Bicycle commuting is fun and cheap. I've done it for long periods of my life. It also requires close proximity to work, rational weather (heat and snow are FAR worse than moderate temperature + rain), and a lack of stuff to carry. Yes, it is possible in a lot of places. And no, it isn't possible in a lot of places and for a lot of people. It also requires dedication. Most people already have a car. Once you already own and maintain the car, leaving it in the driveway in favor of the bike is a hard decision to make.
Want to reduce traffic and pollution by 10%? Find an alternate way to work twice a month.
Gifted kids are not fully enabled, due to lack of time of the teachers. But also, a lot of gifted kids are able to fend for themselves, whatever the teacher does or does not do.
(yes, some of the more 'sensitive' gifted kids can't, and need more of a helping hand. But quite a lot simply go on with things and succeed.)
And the population in here is in no way representative of the pop as a whole. Among general online communities, there are probably more formerly 'gifted kids' here than anywhere else. Let's not use us as a benchmark.
"Some schools with lots of resources are badly managed. Therefore, spending money to create better schools a bad idea."
That's not what I said. "Throwing more money at it isn't necessarily the fix needed." Your 'therefore...' is a false extension of the quote. More money probably won't hurt, but is not the be all and end all of problems with the school system.
We need to grow better parents. And actually teach, instead of teaching to a test.
Or moving the tank up past the tail fin and protecting only vital areas such as the cabin.
Again, you'd have to redesign the whole thing. The belly of the ship is like the frame on your car. The strongest part. You couldn't bolt the axles of your car to the roof, flip it over, and drive around. The roof would collapse. Similarly, you couldn't bolt the tank to the top skin of it, without major redesign.
The best way would be scrapping the side-by-side design altogether, and going with a stack. Which they are doing for the shuttle replacement vehicle. Like just about all previous designs. The delicate part (crew and cargo) is out in front of all the falling bits.
The reason for the landing gear part is because that is a 1 shot deal. The Shuttle must be going less than 300kts when the gear is deployed. And there is no 'retract'. Once the gear is deployed, that's it. It can only be raised in ground operations. And you cannot reenter with the gear down. And after reentry, above 300kts you might tear the gear off. If the computer burps at the wrong time, scratch one shuttle. For just about every other problem, there is a workaround. Fire the reentry rockets at the wrong time? Not great, but you can land at a different runway.
Other than that, it could be completely guided from the ground.
The Russians flew theirs unmanned, and it only flew the once, because the crew module and software wasn't finished.
Slashdot Mirror
Moller may never produce a 'flying car', but someone will eventually.
For very large values of 'eventually'.
The MIT "folding wings" car would solve all these problems:
The operating regimes are too different to make a good, semi-efficient, cross vehicle. Take a standard Cessna 172. About 750kg. Thats about the same as the SmartCar. Now bolt on foldable wings and other control surfaces, the supporting structure needed to hold all that, extra instrumentation...and you've added 500kg to that SmartCar.
Or attack it the other way. How much would a 172 weigh if it needed 5mph bumpers, door beams, and a suspension/frame strong enough to handle a pothole at 60mph? Add in the drive mechanism to get power to the wheels. Oh, and the (strong/foolproof!)linkage needed for the foldable wings. It would end up a much larger aircraft. Where do you put those wings so they don't block the view when on the ground? Only place I can think of is on the roof.
The aircraft spends 99% of its operating life in the smooth, pothole-free, air. There is no need to haul around a useless heavy frame and suspension. A car spends ALL of its operating life on the very uneven ground. With all the bumps and dings that go with that. And no need to haul around unneeded flight control surfaces.
Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done as more than a toy? Not anytime soon.
That said, has anyone actually figured out exactly *how* to get the $10 DSL...
Have you called them and asked? What was their response?
Yes, I do understand that it is legal within their laws to do what they are doing. However, my take on it is this:
One guy tells another guy "Give me a dollar, and I'll give you permission to sell some other persons stuff. He did not tell me directly that this was OK, but that's too bad for him. This is within 'our' laws, so don't worry."
And to the artists/RIAA/whoever:
"We're going to distribute your works. Here is the deal we'll give you. If you don't like this particular amount, tough. We'll distribute it anyway."
If someone made a profit from your work, without your agreement, or any compensation to you except as under their terms...you wouldn't like it either.
standard disclaimer - The RIAA is a bunch of theives and needs to die a horrible death.
Why did the IFPI refuse royalties from ROMS? Could be many reasons. Maybe the terms were not to IFPI's liking, and ROMS would not budge. Maybe the leadership of the IFPI is getting personal kickbacks from ROMS/AllOfMP3 (above are purely fictional reasons). We don't know.
But my initial assertion still stands. If you don't have to (for whatever reason) pay the ultimate supplier, you can price anyone else out of business.
The trail of money from 'you' - AllOfMP3.com - ROMS...stops at ROMS.
What would you like them to do, start mailing cheques directly to the artists?
Sure. Why not? That exact scenario is promoted loudly in here.
Not fully decided yet, but even if that were the case...does any of that money trickle back to the actual copyright holder, be it the RIAA (gag,gag) or the artist? Apparently, no.
Don't get me wrong...the RIAA is evil and needs to die a horrible death. But paying some guy is Russia is even less beneficial to the artist than the RIAA is.
Maybe finally the RIAA will realize that allofmp3's pricing scheme and business model works and proves that if you price it right and don't use DRM
You can price anything right if you choose not to pay your suppliers.
Why? Could you give them a naked box and a Vista DVD and have them get it up and running?
A) The box they bought already comes with Vista/XP. To change, the process needs to be easy. (I've given a bright 11 year old an XP CD and said 'go for it'. No problem)
B) Why isn't making the change easier an admirable goal?
Will this circuitry be present in all flash drives?
Yes. It already is. No reason not to include it on future flash drives.
how about this on the flip side: can I sue you because you're broadcasting your wifi into my house which potentially disrupts my wifi because it's on the same default channel using the same default ssid?
Instead, how about you come over and we talk about it like rational humans. As I would expect you to do if my music were too loud. I know I would. Getting the courts involved as a first step is silly.
Hell yes the bike analogy is flawed. As are most analogies. It was meant to illustrate the concept of "If it's not yours, the default thought should be 'don't fuck with it' ".
The subtleties of "stealing" wireless access, would, in my mind, require the owner to somehow make the user aware that their use was not acceptable before any charges could be brought.
I would think it should be the other way around. Do not use unless you know for sure that you are allowed. An SSID of "UseThisWiFi" or similar.
A bicycle unattended in my front yard is not express permission for you to take it. A sign that says "Free bike" is.
It's not yours to use without express permission.
Eliminate nuclear and coal power in favor of solar and wind power, and replace the stupid cars with bikes.
Can we assume you've already done this on a personal level? And have ventured out of mommy's basement?
Bollocks. Go visit the Netherlands. Or Seattle for that matter.
Neither of which are vaguely similar to Buffalo in the winter, or Houston in the summer.
Bicycle commuting is fun and cheap. I've done it for long periods of my life. It also requires close proximity to work, rational weather (heat and snow are FAR worse than moderate temperature + rain), and a lack of stuff to carry. Yes, it is possible in a lot of places. And no, it isn't possible in a lot of places and for a lot of people.
It also requires dedication. Most people already have a car. Once you already own and maintain the car, leaving it in the driveway in favor of the bike is a hard decision to make.
Want to reduce traffic and pollution by 10%? Find an alternate way to work twice a month.
Gifted kids are not fully enabled, due to lack of time of the teachers. But also, a lot of gifted kids are able to fend for themselves, whatever the teacher does or does not do.
(yes, some of the more 'sensitive' gifted kids can't, and need more of a helping hand. But quite a lot simply go on with things and succeed.)
And the population in here is in no way representative of the pop as a whole. Among general online communities, there are probably more formerly 'gifted kids' here than anywhere else. Let's not use us as a benchmark.
On asking a friend of my daughter some years ago, what he wanted to be when he grew up, he semi-jokingly said "Street pharmacist".
He gets out next year.
"Some schools with lots of resources are badly managed. Therefore, spending money to create better schools a bad idea."
That's not what I said. "Throwing more money at it isn't necessarily the fix needed." Your 'therefore...' is a false extension of the quote.
More money probably won't hurt, but is not the be all and end all of problems with the school system.
We need to grow better parents. And actually teach, instead of teaching to a test.
The hospitals, which initially reported their breaches separately, were left with no one to sue."
I'd start with the ex-CEO. The 'company' did not make decisions, people did. They should be held accountable.
What age is 9th grade?
14ish.
If you don't fund it properly, it just ain't going to work.
Throwing more money at it isn't necessarily the fix needed. Some places with relatively high spending per child have the crappiest schools.
Soyuz = VW Beetle (880kg)
Progress = pickup truck (2,500kg)
Shuttle = tractor trailer (25,000+ kg)
Different vehicles for different uses.
Or moving the tank up past the tail fin and protecting only vital areas such as the cabin.
Again, you'd have to redesign the whole thing. The belly of the ship is like the frame on your car. The strongest part. You couldn't bolt the axles of your car to the roof, flip it over, and drive around. The roof would collapse. Similarly, you couldn't bolt the tank to the top skin of it, without major redesign.
The best way would be scrapping the side-by-side design altogether, and going with a stack. Which they are doing for the shuttle replacement vehicle. Like just about all previous designs. The delicate part (crew and cargo) is out in front of all the falling bits.
The reason for the landing gear part is because that is a 1 shot deal. The Shuttle must be going less than 300kts when the gear is deployed. And there is no 'retract'. Once the gear is deployed, that's it. It can only be raised in ground operations. And you cannot reenter with the gear down. And after reentry, above 300kts you might tear the gear off. If the computer burps at the wrong time, scratch one shuttle.
For just about every other problem, there is a workaround. Fire the reentry rockets at the wrong time? Not great, but you can land at a different runway.
Other than that, it could be completely guided from the ground.
The Russians flew theirs unmanned, and it only flew the once, because the crew module and software wasn't finished.
Is it possible to find a way to launch the shuttle with the belly facing AWAY from the main tank?
Sure, if you redesign the entire thing. That tail sticking up kinda screws that idea.
That way any impacts from ice or foam would strike surfaces not critical for reentry.
'Non critical'. Like the windshields, flight controls, thinner skin of the body. Non critical stuff like that.
There's probably a sweet spot somewhere between MP3 and CD where you would not notice the difference.
Somewhere between the average crap you get from P2P, and what you can buy from iTunes.
This would be awesome if it was open to the public.
No, it wouldn't. There will always be those who have more time/angst/idiocy than you do, and will use that to exploit people.