I don't get what the author of this article wins by proposing such ridiculously exagerated speeds. Sadly, this kind of nonse plagues sci-fi-like tech news since tech news exists.
I see no need for a train going at 6000 km/h. But the idea could be interesting even at much lower speeds. A vaccuum tunel based maglev going at 600 km/h would already be quite at win for energy efficiency. But as long as it costs less to build and maintain reactors to power electical trains, you won't see any of these around.
The ordnance disposal teams know their work. They know exactly how far they have to be and how well protected. They leave very little to chance. They also evacuate the areas at risk before defusing, securing and transporting the unexploded ordnance. Not too long ago, they found a 4000 lbs bomb from WW2 in the Rhine in Koblenz. They evacuate about half the city... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16018659
But even if they know what they are doing, I wouldn't want to do their jobs...
They may be no exploded ordnance as once it exploded, it's not ordnance anymore. Unexploded ordnance refers to ordnance that was used, supposed to explode, but did not and often still poses a risk of exploding. At this point it generally cannot be reused.
Disposing of unexploded ordnance is quite delicate. I see it almost monthly as they find bombs or shells from WW2 on many constructions sites. In cities, the usual process is to remove the triggering mechanism, transport the unexploded ordnance to a save location and destroy it.
In remote location, for example in mine fields, the ordnance is usually destroyed on site. With a controlled lightning bolt-like discharge, you may even be able to destroy the ordnance without having found its exact location. This would significantly accelerate mine removal process and make it much safer.
It may be so, but in 2012 ordinance and ordnance have distinct definition and you should use one in the context of the other. This distinction is in use since the 15th century and has been accepted in every English dictionaries I know. But it is absolutely correct that some ordinance may cause more harm than some ordnance.
It's not the science that needs advertising, but rather the politicians. The same politicians that decided that there should be at least 50% girls in all science degrees and in scientific institutions.
Which isn't unlike the Bible. But I've never seen anyone here stone their ex for cheating on them. Just like such actions do not happen in most Muslim countries (so, euh, most countries then). This is the action of a very limited group of people. Although I am not a good friend of religions, I nevertheless do not think it is fair to blame a religion for some actions based on a perverted and archaic interpretation of its scriptures by a group of deranged people.
You can't create a hype about something and expect those hung by it to wait a year or more. It's simply against the nature of what you are trying to do with your marketing campaign.
FFS, when will "you" people understand the basic concept that follows: At equal component level a PC is not less expensive than an the equivalent Apple. I mean, you can't blame a company for not wanting to sell low end computers, do you?
I recently bough a high end PC laptop... a mac book pro would have even been less expensive with pretty much the same internal components.
I'm surprised by the ruling because it removes the teeth of most copyright law.
Not really. It still has all its power and teeths for those copyright infringement cases for which it was designed in the first place. (hint: internet did not exist at that time, so I doubt it involves wlan access points).
Sorry, but I must disagree with you here. Modifying traffic light sequences to give priority to certain vehicle or convoy is a standard procedure that was most likely implemented by design in London (I assume the obvious here). They simply applied this standard procedure for dignitary/Queen/Emergency response for a fraudulent purpose. How is that a hack or a kludge? How is it an awkward shot term solution to a problem if said solution is implemented by design?
It is true that many tend to forget that a word may have broader meaning, more than one definition. Your are quite correct there! But I do not think this can be considered a hack, regardless of the definition you want to apply.
That word definitely lost all its meaning... since when does manually intervening in an automated process (and that through interfaces there by design for this purpose) can be thought of as "hacking". From all editors in the world, those on Slashdot should know better.
The goal of this action has nothing to do with whether you can call it hacking or not. In this case, I believe "fraud" would be more appropriate. This is a textbook case of it.
Yes, all Infrared imaging systems, or part thereof, are protected under ITAR. Nobody (maybe some stlll do) in Europe buys IR detector in the US anymore for this reasons. That's one place where the German, French and Israeli industries gained a lot because of ITAR.
working in the aerospace field, I have to deal with ITAR related issues all the time. It's is really burdensome for the industry outside the US and, in the end, mostly hurting the US Industry. Having such regulation within the NATO countries is quite silly if you ask me and it is the best incentive for those nations to develop their own industry. In the end we always get parts or expertise outside of the US if we have a choice.
But don't think the grass is greener everywhere. Other countries have similar export regulations that aren't any less a PITA. I quickly think problems we have with BAFA in Germany, although those issues are nowhere as complicated as those create by ITAR.
On many project requirements, you find on top of the list "No ITAR regulated parts/software/whatever"... and this trend is expending as people learn to work without new providers outside of the US and these providers gain the required expertise. Hell! Even some US projects now aim for systems without any ITAR regulated components! Your guess on the impact of such a trend on the US industry is just as good as mine.
That got to be the stupidest HR policy that ever was devised. Of course no one expects you to fight just to get a weird document format open. But refusing a mainstream standard like PDF in 2012 is totally absurd. It's like refusing to listen to someone in his job interview because he drove the scenic route instead of the highway to get there.
In the end, with such policies you are only hurting yourself. You clearly confirm what I observed in so many companies I work with (but hopefully not all of them) : they slowly die from the inside because of their HR departments.
Slashdot Mirror
In Rod We Trust.
(or, more appropriate to the topic : In, Rod We Thrust).
I don't get what the author of this article wins by proposing such ridiculously exagerated speeds. Sadly, this kind of nonse plagues sci-fi-like tech news since tech news exists.
I see no need for a train going at 6000 km/h. But the idea could be interesting even at much lower speeds. A vaccuum tunel based maglev going at 600 km/h would already be quite at win for energy efficiency. But as long as it costs less to build and maintain reactors to power electical trains, you won't see any of these around.
Airlines?
I'm going to go ahead and propose the hypothesis that your comment illustrates the origin of the whole problem/situation.
That why Every EULA ever are legally inadmissible, if not illegal, in many civilized countries.
In the EU, for example, the company is bound to certain warranties that cannot be disclaimed by a EULA.
The ordnance disposal teams know their work. They know exactly how far they have to be and how well protected. They leave very little to chance. They also evacuate the areas at risk before defusing, securing and transporting the unexploded ordnance. Not too long ago, they found a 4000 lbs bomb from WW2 in the Rhine in Koblenz. They evacuate about half the city...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16018659
But even if they know what they are doing, I wouldn't want to do their jobs...
They may be no exploded ordnance as once it exploded, it's not ordnance anymore.
Unexploded ordnance refers to ordnance that was used, supposed to explode, but did not and often still poses a risk of exploding. At this point it generally cannot be reused.
Disposing of unexploded ordnance is quite delicate. I see it almost monthly as they find bombs or shells from WW2 on many constructions sites. In cities, the usual process is to remove the triggering mechanism, transport the unexploded ordnance to a save location and destroy it.
In remote location, for example in mine fields, the ordnance is usually destroyed on site. With a controlled lightning bolt-like discharge, you may even be able to destroy the ordnance without having found its exact location. This would significantly accelerate mine removal process and make it much safer.
It may be so, but in 2012 ordinance and ordnance have distinct definition and you should use one in the context of the other. This distinction is in use since the 15th century and has been accepted in every English dictionaries I know. But it is absolutely correct that some ordinance may cause more harm than some ordnance.
It's not the science that needs advertising, but rather the politicians. The same politicians that decided that there should be at least 50% girls in all science degrees and in scientific institutions.
I thought it was what they were trying to do with their blackhole factory...
Which isn't unlike the Bible. But I've never seen anyone here stone their ex for cheating on them. Just like such actions do not happen in most Muslim countries (so, euh, most countries then). This is the action of a very limited group of people. Although I am not a good friend of religions, I nevertheless do not think it is fair to blame a religion for some actions based on a perverted and archaic interpretation of its scriptures by a group of deranged people.
I hear Iran is now in the business of building US Non Us built UAV...
But on a more serious not, I can only understand this. With the export of an UAV, you also export enough paper work for two full time jobs.
You can't create a hype about something and expect those hung by it to wait a year or more. It's simply against the nature of what you are trying to do with your marketing campaign.
Slowly but surely, I'm beginning to think it would be time to introduce editor moderation.
I'm not going to bother to look it up
See, there's your problem. You're ignorant, you know it and you admittedly not interested to do anything about it.
FFS, when will "you" people understand the basic concept that follows: At equal component level a PC is not less expensive than an the equivalent Apple. I mean, you can't blame a company for not wanting to sell low end computers, do you?
I recently bough a high end PC laptop... a mac book pro would have even been less expensive with pretty much the same internal components.
I'm surprised by the ruling because it removes the teeth of most copyright law.
Not really. It still has all its power and teeths for those copyright infringement cases for which it was designed in the first place. (hint: internet did not exist at that time, so I doubt it involves wlan access points).
Sorry, but I must disagree with you here. Modifying traffic light sequences to give priority to certain vehicle or convoy is a standard procedure that was most likely implemented by design in London (I assume the obvious here). They simply applied this standard procedure for dignitary/Queen/Emergency response for a fraudulent purpose. How is that a hack or a kludge? How is it an awkward shot term solution to a problem if said solution is implemented by design?
It is true that many tend to forget that a word may have broader meaning, more than one definition. Your are quite correct there! But I do not think this can be considered a hack, regardless of the definition you want to apply.
That word definitely lost all its meaning... since when does manually intervening in an automated process (and that through interfaces there by design for this purpose) can be thought of as "hacking". From all editors in the world, those on Slashdot should know better.
The goal of this action has nothing to do with whether you can call it hacking or not. In this case, I believe "fraud" would be more appropriate. This is a textbook case of it.
This is the key point... Technology hardly ever becomes useless. It will always do what it was designed to do (taking it still works as intended).
It will eventually become outdated, replaced with more effective technologies (cost or function wise) or fail to fulfill newer need.
But this, we should never forget. Technology will always do what it was designed do to.
Yes, all Infrared imaging systems, or part thereof, are protected under ITAR. Nobody (maybe some stlll do) in Europe buys IR detector in the US anymore for this reasons. That's one place where the German, French and Israeli industries gained a lot because of ITAR.
working in the aerospace field, I have to deal with ITAR related issues all the time. It's is really burdensome for the industry outside the US and, in the end, mostly hurting the US Industry. Having such regulation within the NATO countries is quite silly if you ask me and it is the best incentive for those nations to develop their own industry. In the end we always get parts or expertise outside of the US if we have a choice.
But don't think the grass is greener everywhere. Other countries have similar export regulations that aren't any less a PITA. I quickly think problems we have with BAFA in Germany, although those issues are nowhere as complicated as those create by ITAR.
On many project requirements, you find on top of the list "No ITAR regulated parts/software/whatever"... and this trend is expending as people learn to work without new providers outside of the US and these providers gain the required expertise. Hell! Even some US projects now aim for systems without any ITAR regulated components! Your guess on the impact of such a trend on the US industry is just as good as mine.
That got to be the stupidest HR policy that ever was devised. Of course no one expects you to fight just to get a weird document format open. But refusing a mainstream standard like PDF in 2012 is totally absurd. It's like refusing to listen to someone in his job interview because he drove the scenic route instead of the highway to get there.
In the end, with such policies you are only hurting yourself. You clearly confirm what I observed in so many companies I work with (but hopefully not all of them) : they slowly die from the inside because of their HR departments.
That's only one Word.
As the quote said, '...retail price.'. But thanks for pointing that out and enlighting us.